COMPARATIVE STUDY ON REINFORCED CONCRETE

AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS WITH VARIOUS

FLOOR SYSTEMS

BY

TARIQUE NAZMUS SADAT

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, DHAKA, BANGLADESH

MARCH, 2014
COMPARATIVE STUDY ON REINFORCED CONCRETE
AND STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS WITH VARIOUS
FLOOR SYSTEMS

A THESIS
BY

TARIQUE NAZMUS SADAT

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh

University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of

MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN CIVIL AND

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND
TECHNOLOGY, DHAKA, BANGLADESH

MARCH, 2014
 CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The thesis titled Comparative Study on Reinforced Concrete and Steel Framed
Buildings with Various Floor Systems submitted by Tarique Nazmus Sadat, Roll
No.: 0409042304(P), Session: April 2009 has been accepted as satisfactory in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master in Engineering in Civil and
Structural Engineering on 31 March, 2014.

BOARD OF EXAMINERS

1. Dr. Md. Shafiul Bari Chairman

Professor (Supervisor)
Department of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

2. Dr. Ahsanul Kabir Member

Professor
Department of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

3. Dr. Mahbuba Begum Member

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering,
BUET, Dhaka.

ii
 DECLARATION

It is hereby declared that the works contained in this thesis is the research work
carried out by the author under the supervision of Dr. Shafiul Bari, Professor of the
Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka. Neither this thesis nor any part
thereof has been submitted elsewhere for the award of any degree or diploma except
for publications.

Tarique Nazmus Sadat

iii
 Dedicated

To

My Beloved Parents

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Alhamdulillah. All praises to Allah (SWT) who bestowed His Mercy upon me to complete
this work successfully.

It is indeed a great pleasure and also a great privilege for me to express my deepest gratitude
to Dr. Md. Shafiul Bari, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BUET, Dhaka, for his
inspiration, encouragement, proper guidance and invaluable suggestions to carry out the
research work. His initiative, high appreciation and encouragement to perform research in
the field of my interest are highly acknowledged.

Many thanks to Engr. Rezwanul Mamun, Managing director, and the design team of
Steelmark Buildings Ltd.; those who initiated inspiration and logical ground to perform
research work on steel structure by sharing knowledge, experience and a lot of practical
structural problems about different steel, composite and RC structures including BUET
JIDPAS project.

My sincere gratitude to Dr. Mahbuba Begum, Associate Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, BUET, Dhaka for her valuable suggestions about this research.

I acknowledge the help of professors Dr. Mehedi Ansari, Dr. Rakib Ahsan and Dr. Toufique
Anwar; regarding structural design and overall project cost evaluation of BUET JIDPAS
project. They have given me the opportunity to attend, discuss and work on this project for
structural modeling, analysis and design of steel structure which virtually inspired me to
perform this study and research on steel structure.

Most deserving of special recognition is for my Wife Shaheen Sultana (MA) and my
daughters Medha and Mollika who were my source of inspiration and helped me sacrificing
their share of family life. My deepest appreciation and thanks for their patient, unconditional
love, mental support, sacrifice and help, without which this work could not have been
materialized.

The Author

v
 ABSTRACT

Reinforced concrete and steel framed structures with various floor systems are being used for
multistory buildings. So there are alternative options for designers to decide structural
system for a particular building. A comparative study on RC and steel framed buildings with
various floor systems is necessary to evaluate better structural system regarding overall
economy, structural performance, construction time etc. This study will be helpful in
deciding structural system for multistory industrial buildings. Past studies on multistory
industrial building structures of Bangladesh are not much enough. This limits our ability in
making decision about structural system of industrial buildings in Bangladesh.

To conduct the intended research work, architectural layout plan of a six story garments
factory is prepared. Following the layout plan, RC structure with flat plate and beam-slab
floor system is formed. According to same plan, steel structure with non-composite and
composite floor system is also formed. Structural modeling and analysis have been
performed by STAAD.Pro. Loads are assigned following BNBC 1993. From analytical
results, RC structures are designed following ACI Building Code 2008. Steel structures are
designed following AISC LRFD 2010. Comparisons of structural behavior and cost analysis
have been performed for the four types of structural system.

The research outcome shows that building cost increases 1.6% for RC flat plate system,
1.8% for steel composite system and about 9% for steel non-composite system compared to
RC beam-slab system. When floor system of steel structure is designed as composite then
structural steel weight savings is about 18% for typical grid of 7.62m7.62m. Composite
system brings significant economic benefit for steel structure; for example structural steel
cost decreases 18-19%, total structural cost decreases 9-11% and finally total building cost
decreases by 6-8%. Compared to steel structure, foundation cost increases 22% for RC
beam-slab system and 24% for RC flat plate system.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

DECLERATION..iii
ACKNOLEDGEMENT................v
ABSTRACT.vi
TABLE OF CONTENTSvii
LIST OF TABLES...........xi
LIST OF FIGURES.......xiii

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1General.1
1.2 Background and Present State of the Problem........1
1.3 Objectives2
1.4 Scope of Work.........3
1.5 Outline of Methodology..3
1.6 Organization of the Thesis..4

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction.5
2.2 Structural Forms of Multistory Buildings...5
2.3 Floor Systems of Multistory Buildings..8
2.3.1 Reinforced Concrete Floor Systems.8
2.3.2 Non-Composite Floor Systems of Steel Framing...11
2.3.3 Composite Floor Systems of Steel Framing...13
2.4 Load Considerations..14
2.5 Load Combinations...16
2.5.1 BNBC Load Combinations16
2.5.2 AISC LRFD Load Combinations...18
2.5.3 ACI Load Combinations18
2.6 Foundation Systems..19
2.7 Connection Systems..20
2.7.1 Connection of Steel Structure.20
vii
 2.7.1.1 Simple Connections20
2.7.1.2 Moment Connections.20
2.7.2 Plastic Hinge for Steel Structure................22
2.7.3 RC Structural Joint.22
2.7.4 RC Expansion Joint22
2.8 Serviceability Criteria24
2.8.1Story Drift and Top Deflection ..26
2.8.2 Vertical Deflection.........................................................27
2.8.3 Floor Vibrations and Dynamic Response ......28
2.8.4 Fire Resistance ..............31
2.8.5 Camber.......32
2.8.6 Other Serviceability Requirements...........................................................34
2.9 Seismic Performance of Steel Structure....36
2.10 Estimating and Costing...40
2.11 Materials and Specifications for steel structure..40
2.11.1 Structural Steel.40
2.11.2 Welding43
2.11.3 Structural Fasteners..47
2.11.3.1 High-Strength Bolts..47
2.11.3.2 Load and Resistance Factor Design of Fasteners.47
2.11.4 Anchor Rod..51
2.11.5 Shear Connector...53
2.11.6 Formed Steel Deck...54
2.11.7 Hot-Rolled, Built-Up and Cold-Formed Sections55
2.11.8 Theory of Design of Steel Structure.56
2.12 Concluding Remarks...56

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction...57
3.2 Architectural Design..57
3.3 Structural Form with Floor System...58
3.3.1 RC Structural Forms with Floor Systems...58
3.3.2 Steel Structural Forms with Floor Systems62
3.4 Design Loads.64
viii
3.5 Structural Modeling and Analysis.64
3.5.1 Generation of Model..64
3.5.2 Assigning Member Properties67
3.5.3 Assigning Basic Loads...67
3.5.4 Generation of Load Combinations.69
3.5.5 Structural Analysis.71
3.6 Design of Structural Components.71
3.6.1 Design of Steel Structure.71
3.6.1.1 Design of Steel members71
3.6.1.2 Design of Connections...75
3.6.1.3 Design of Sub-Structure and Floor Slab.80
3.6.2 Design of RC structure80
3.7 Stress Ratio for steel structures.81
3.8 Lateral Drifts and Vertical Deflections84
3.9 Estimating and Costing.87
3.9.1 Rate Analysis and Schedule of Item Rate...87
3.9.2 Estimating and Costing for Steel Structure.88
3.9.3 Estimating and Costing for RC Structure92
3.10 Concluding Remarks...94

Chapter 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction...95
4.2 Structural Steel Weight Comparison.95
4.3 Cost Comparison of Steel Structures.97
4.4 Cost Comparison of Steel and RC Structures.101
4.5 Comparison of Seismic Load..106
4.6 Comparison of Gravity Loads.107
4.7 Comparison of Lateral Story Drift..109
4.8 Comparison of Vertical Deflection.110
4.9 Comparison of Stress Ratio.112
4.10 Concluding Remarks.112

ix
Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction.113
5.2 Conclusions.113
5.2.1 Steel Structure...113
5.2.2 Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structure..114
5.2.3 Structural Behavior and Performance...114
5.3 Final Remarks..115
5.4 Recommendations for future work..115

REFERENCES 117-118

APPENDICES A 119-152
B 153-168
C 169-173
D 174-180

x
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO. PAGE
Table 2.1 Spacing of expansion joint.24
Table 2.2 Deflection limits, adopted from IBC..28
Table 2.3 Human response to acceleration.30
Table 2.4 Properties of steels used for buildings and bridges42
Table 2.5 Minimum size of fillet welds..45
Table 2.6 Anchor rod materials..51
Table 2.7 Nominal strength Qn (ksi) for stud shear connector...54
Table 3.1 Generated load combinations in STAAD.Pro models70
Table 3.2 Steel secondary beam sections...72
Table 3.3 Steel girder sections73
Table 3.4 Steel secondary beam sections over roof level...74
Table 3.5 Diagonal bracing sections.......74
Table 3.6 Designed steel column sections..............................................................................75
Table 3.7 Base plates and anchor bolts schedule....................................................................76
Table 3.8 Girder end plate joint schedule (NCF system).......................................................77
Table 3.9 Girder end plate joint schedule (CF system)..........................................................77
Table 3.10 Stress ratio for columns (steel NCF system)........................................................81
Table 3.11 Stress ratio for columns (steel CF system)...........................................................82
Table 3.12 Stress ratio for secondary beams..........................................................................82
Table 3.13 Stress ratio for girders...........................................................................................83
Table 3.14 Stress ratio of non-composite secondary beams (when act as NC)......................83
Table 3.15 Stress ratio of non-composite girders (when act as NC)......................................83
Table 3.16 Lateral Drifts and Top Deflections.......................................................................84
Table 3.17 Vertical deflections of steel secondary beams......................................................85
Table 3.18 Vertical deflections of steel girders......................................................................85
Table 3.19 Vertical deflections of steel NC beams (without composite action)....................86
Table 3.20 Vertical deflections of steel NC girders (without composite action)...................86
Table 3.21 Vertical deflections of floor beams (RC beam-slab system)................................87
Table 3.22 Vertical deflections of RC flat plate system.........................................................87
Table 3.23 Foundation cost up to plinth (steel NCF and CF system).....................................88
th
Table 3.24 Typical floor cost of steel NCF system with deck (ground to 4 floor slab).......89
th
Table 3.25 Typical floor cost of steel CF system with deck (ground to 4 floor slab)..........90
xi
Table 3.26 Top floor cost of steel NCF system with deck.....................................................91
Table 3.27 Top floor cost of steel CF system with deck........................................................92
Table 3.28 Foundation cost up to plinth (RC beam-slab system)...........................................93
Table 3.29 Foundation cost up to plinth (RC flat plate system).............................................93
th
Table 3.30 Typical floor cost of RC beam-slab system(ground to 4 floor slab)..................93
th
Table 3.31 Typical floor cost of RC flat plate system(ground to 4 floor slab).....................93
Table 3.32 Top floor cost of RC beam-slab system...............................................................94
Table 3.33 Top floor cost of RC flat plate system..................................................................94
Table 4.1 Comparison of structural steel weight....................................................................95
Table 4.2 Cost comparison of steel structure..........................................................................98
Table 4.3 Cost comparison of steel and RC structure..........................................................102
Table 4.4 Comparison of seismic load.................................................................................106
Table 4.5 Comparison of gravity loads.................................................................................108
Table 4.6 Comparison of lateral story drifts.........................................................................110
Table 4.7 Comparison of vertical deflection........................................................................111
Table 4.8 Comparison of stress ratio....................................................................................112
Table B.1 Design live loads..................................................................................................153
Table B.2 Live load reduction factor as per BNBC 1993.....................................................153
Table B.3 Design wind pressure (wind perpendicular to building length)...........................157
Table B.4 Design wind pressure (wind perpendicular to building width)............................158
Table B.5 Seismic dead load of steel NCF system with steel deck......................................161
Table B.6 Seismic nodal load for steel NCF with steel deck...............................................162
Table B.7 Seismic dead load of steel NCF without steel deck.............................................163
Table B.8 Seismic nodal load for steel NCF without steel deck..........................................164
Table B.9 Seismic dead load of RC beam-slab structure.....................................................165
Table B.10 Seismic nodal load for RC slab-beam system....................................................166
Table B.11 Seismic dead load of RC flat plate structure......................................................166
Table B.12 Seismic nodal load for RC flat plate system......................................................167
Table C.1 Schedule of rates for structural steel....................................................................169
Table C.2 Schedule of rates for RC structural works...........................................................170
Table C.3 Schedule of rates for other civil works................................................................171
Table C.4 Schedule of rates for sanitary works....................................................................173

xii
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO. PAGE
Figure 2.1 Wall-frame
structure...............................................................................................8
Figure 2.2 Eccentric braced frame...........................................................................................8
Figure 2.3 One-way slabs on beams or walls...........................................................................9
Figure 2.4 One-way pan joists and beams................................................................................9
Figure 2.5 One-way slab on beams and girders.....................................................................10
Figure 2.6 Two-way flat plate................................................................................................10
Figure 2.7 Two-way flat slab..................................................................................................11
Figure 2.8 Waffle slabs...........................................................................................................11
Figure 2.9 Two-way slab and beam.......................................................................................11
Figure 2.10 One-way beam system........................................................................................12
Figure 2.11 Two-way beam system........................................................................................13
Figure 2.12 Three-way beam system......................................................................................13
Figure 2.13 Composite floor system......................................................................................13
Figure 3.1 Typical architectural plan of the selected building...............................................59
Figure 3.2 Floor systems for RC structure.............................................................................60
Figure 3.3 Rigid frame for RC structure................................................................................60
Figure 3.4 Grade beam layout for RC and steel structure......................................................61
Figure 3.5 Steel beam topping RC slab..................................................................................61
Figure 3.6 Floor system of steel framing...............................................................................63
Figure 3.7 Sami-rigid frames with and without bracing for steel structure...........................63
Figure 3.8 STAAD.Pro models for steel structures................................................................65
Figure 3.9 STAAD.Pro models for RC structures..................................................................66
Figure 3.10 Some elements from STAAD.Pro models..........................................................67
Figure 3.11 Some basic loads from STAAD.Pro models.......................................................69
Figure 3.12 Typical end plate.................................................................................................76
Figure 3.13 Simple shear connection.....................................................................................78
Figure 3.14 Continuous connection.......................................................................................78
Figure 3.15 Column joint.......................................................................................................79
Figure 3.16 Moment connection of beam with column web..................................................79
Figure 3.17 Connection of diagonal bracing..........................................................................80
Figure 4.1 Comparison of structural steel weight..................................................................96
Figure 4.2 Structural steel weight analysis for non-composite floor system.........................96
xiii
Figure 4.3 Structural steel weight analysis for composite floor system.................................97
Figure 4.4 Cost of steel structure (BDT per square meter)....................................................99
Figure 4.5 Super structure cost comparison of steel structure................................................99
Figure 4.6 Total building cost comparison of steel structure...............................................100
Figure 4.7 Total building cost comparison of steel structure (with fire proof spray)..........100
Figure 4.8 Distribution of total building cost for steel structure..........................................100
Figure 4.9 Distribution of total building cost of steel and RC structures.............................102
Figure 4.10 Cost of steel and RC structure (BDT per square meter)...................................103
Figure 4.11 Comparison of foundation cost up to plinth......................................................103
Figure 4.12 Super structure cost comparison.......................................................................104
Figure 4.13 Total building cost comparison.........................................................................104
Figure 4.14 Total building cost comparison with fire proof spray at steel structure............105
Figure 4.15 Comparison of seismic load..............................................................................107
Figure 4.16 Comparison of gravity loads.............................................................................109
Figure D.1 Steel column layout plan....................................................................................174
Figure D.2(a) Typical floor steel girder layout plan............................................................175
Figure D.2(b) Steel girder layout plan over roof level.........................................................176
Figure D.3(a) Typical floor steel secondary beam layout plan............................................177
Figure D.3(b) Steel secondary beam layout plan over roof level.........................................178
Figure D.4 Steel bracing system...........................................................................................179
Figure D.5 Steel base plate layout plan................................................................................180

xiv
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Worldwide different types of RC and steel structures with various floor systems are being
used for multistory buildings. In the past, masonry structures were widely used for building
construction. Day by day technology has developed. Later, steel structural systems were
started for multistory buildings. With the introduction of reinforced concrete, RC structural
systems started for multistory building construction. RC floor system supported on steel
beam was historically designed as non composite. With the advent of welding, it became
practical to provide mechanical shear connectors to consider composite action. Due to failure
of many multi-storied and low-rise RC and masonry buildings due to earthquake, structural
engineers are looking for the alternative methods of construction. Use of composite or hybrid
material is of particular interest. Bare steel structure is sensitive to fire. Now a day, different
fire proofing system has developed significantly. In Bangladesh, mostly masonry and RC
structures were being used. During last decade, steel structural systems are being popular.
So, alternative structural systems are gradually developing to compete with RC structural
systems. Now a day, use of masonry structure is very limited. RC structure is dominating
and steel structure is entering gradually for multistory building structures in Bangladesh. So,
comparative study is required to identify most effective structural system for a particular
building.

1.2 Background

Reinforced concrete rigid frame and shear walled-frame structure with different floor
systems such as two-way slab supported on beam, flat plate etc. are being used widely for
last few decades in Bangladesh. Now a day, to cut short the construction time, steel structure
is getting popularity for multistory industrial and commercial buildings. Eccentric and
concentric braced steel frame with steel girder-beam floor system topping RC slab on
corrugated steel deck is being used. RC slabs are being connected with steel beam and girder
by the help of mechanical shear connectors. So, steel floor system may be designed as
composite or non composite. Usually, when composite action is considered then significant
economic benefit may be achieved. Steel columns also may be designed as composite, using
APPENDICES
 Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

Worldwide different types of RC and steel structures with various floor systems are being
used for multistory buildings. In the past, masonry structures were widely used for building
construction. Day by day technology has developed. Later, steel structural systems were
started for multistory buildings. With the introduction of reinforced concrete, RC structural
systems started for multistory building construction. RC floor system supported on steel
beam was historically designed as non composite. With the advent of welding, it became
practical to provide mechanical shear connectors to consider composite action. Due to failure
of many multi-storied and low-rise RC and masonry buildings due to earthquake, structural
engineers are looking for the alternative methods of construction. Use of composite or hybrid
material is of particular interest. Bare steel structure is sensitive to fire. Now a day, different
fire proofing system has developed significantly. In Bangladesh, mostly masonry and RC
structures were being used. During last decade, steel structural systems are being popular.
So, alternative structural systems are gradually developing to compete with RC structural
systems. Now a day, use of masonry structure is very limited. RC structure is dominating
and steel structure is entering gradually for multistory building structures in Bangladesh. So,
comparative study is required to identify most effective structural system for a particular
building.

1.2 Background

Reinforced concrete rigid frame and shear walled-frame structure with different floor
systems such as two-way slab supported on beam, flat plate etc. are being used widely for
last few decades in Bangladesh. Now a day, to cut short the construction time, steel structure
is getting popularity for multistory industrial and commercial buildings. Eccentric and
concentric braced steel frame with steel girder-beam floor system topping RC slab on
corrugated steel deck is being used. RC slabs are being connected with steel beam and girder
by the help of mechanical shear connectors. So, steel floor system may be designed as
composite or non composite. Usually, when composite action is considered then significant
economic benefit may be achieved. Steel columns also may be designed as composite, using
RC encased or concrete in-filled steel tube systems. So there are alternative options for the
designers to select structural form and floor system for a particular building. Especially for
industrial multistory building, there is a construction time limit. So, investors show interest
for steel structure due to quick constructionability. But sometimes investors and designers
are confused about construction cost of steel structure compared to RC structure. Some
designers have preconception that steel structures are highly expensive compared to RC
structures and they show less interest for steel structure.

In the past, research were conducted to evaluate and compare structural behavior, overall
structural performance, construction time and economy of RC, steel and composite structural
systems for multistory buildings (Panchal and Patodi 2010, Johnson 2004, Rackham et al.
2009, Dabhade et al. 2009, Panchel and Marathe 2011). Those works suggest that steel
structure with composite floor system brings considerable economy i.e. 20 to 60 percent
structural steel weight savings is possible. Also 40 to 60 percent construction time savings
for steel structure is possible compared to RC structure. Steel structure with composite floor
system is 6 to 10 percent cost effective over RC structure. However, such information for
structural systems of typical multistory industrial and commercial buildings in Bangladesh is
not known exactly. This limits our ability in making decision about structural systems of
upcoming multistory buildings in Bangladesh. This justifies the necessity of conducting
comparative research and study on RC and steel framed buildings with various floor systems
to evaluate the most effective structural system with emphasis on overall economy, structural
performance, construction time etc. This study will be helpful in deciding effective structural
system for multistory commercial and industrial buildings in Bangladesh.

1.3 Objectives

1. To perform structural analysis and design of a reinforced concrete framed six storied
industrial building with various floor systems.
2. To conduct structural analysis of the same building using steel framing with
composite and non-composite floor systems.
3. To compare the structural behavior and cost analysis of the buildings.
1.4 Scope of Work

Architectural layout plan of a six story garments factory has been prepared. The typical floor
height is 3.35 meter and column spacing is 7.62 meter in both directions. Following the plan,
RC shear walled-rigid frame structure with two-way slab supported on beam and flat plate
floor system is formed. Using the same plan, eccentric braced steel frame with steel girder-
beam floor system topping RC slab on corrugated steel deck is formed as composite and
non-composite. To activate composite action, mechanical shear connectors have been used.
Then the building is designed and estimated for these four types of structural system
including foundation. Total building cost including foundation, plumbing, sanitary, wall,
floor finishing etc. has been prepared excluding electro mechanical cost for the selected four
types of structure. Cost of fire proofing spray is considered separately. For steel structure,
columns are non-composite for both cases i.e. steel I-section. Static analysis is performed.
Duration of construction time is not considered. Span and height is constant. Construction
cost, structural behavior and other related matters are observed to evaluate the better
structural system for the selected garments factory building.

1.5 Outline of Methodology

To conduct the intended research work, architectural layout plan of a six story factory
building i.e. garments factory has been prepared. Following the plan, RC structure with beam
supported two-way slab floor and flat plate floor system is formed. Again following same
plan, steel structure with steel girder-beam floor topping RC slab on corrugated steel deck is
formed as composite and non-composite. Steel columns are non-composite i.e. steel I-
sections for both cases. Then three dimensional structural modeling and static analysis have
been performed by STADD.Pro for the four types of structural system. Loads are assigned as
per BNBC 1993. Load combinations are generated regarding BNBC 1993, AISC LRFD
Specifications 1993 and ACI Building code 2008. From analytical results, RC structure is
designed using USD method as per ACI Building Code 2008. Steel structure is designed
following AISC LRFD Specifications 2010. Welding, connections, anchor bolts, base plates,
nut-bolts, shear connectors etc. are also designed following AISC LRFD Specifications
2010. Complete construction cost excluding electro-mechanical cost has been prepared.
Comparison of construction cost, structural behavior and other related matters have been
prepared to evaluate better/ most effective structural system for the building used for this
research.
1.6 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 presents an introduction to the study. It
includes the research background, objectives, scope of work and outline of methodology.

Chapter 2 deals with literature review. It illustrates the structural systems, load
considerations, load combinations, connection systems, foundation systems, serviceability
criteri, materials and specifications used for structural steel design, estimating and costing
procedure etc.

Chapter 3 deals with complete methodology of the research work. It illustrates architectural
planning and structural formation of selected building, load calculations, structural modeling,
structural analysis, design, estimating and preparation of tables for different design results.

Chapter 4 deals with analysis and discussion of all data obtained from the design program
performed in chapter 3 to compare, evaluate and draw findings and conclusions of the
research work.

Chapter 5 deals with conclusions and recommendations of the research work.

 Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Different types of RC and steel structure with various floor systems are commonly used for
multistory buildings. In designing multistory building structure, thorough knowledge is
required about different structural systems, load considerations, load combinations,
foundation systems, serviceability requirements, construction materials and specifications,
connection types etc. These are illustrated in this chapter in brief.

2.2 Structural Forms of Multistory Buildings

In the structural modeling and design process of a multistory building, a thorough knowledge
of multi-story building structural components and their modes of behavior is a prerequisite to
devising an appropriate load resisting system. Such a system must be efficient, economic and
should minimize the structural penalty for height and span while maximizing the satisfaction
of the basic serviceability requirements. Some conventional structural forms are described
here in brief.

Rigid Frame Structure

Rigid frame structures consist of columns and girders jointed by moment resistant
connections. The lateral stiffness of a rigid-frame bent depends on the bending stiffness of
the columns, girders, and connections in the plane of the bent. If used as the only source of
lateral resistance in a building, in its typical 6 to 9 meter bay size, rigid framing is economic
only for buildings up to about 25 stories. Rigid-frame construction is ideally suited for
reinforced concrete buildings because of the inherent rigidity of reinforced concrete joints.
The rigid-frame form is also used for steel frame buildings, but moment resistant
connections in steel tends to be costly. The sizes of the columns and girders at any level of a
rigid frame are directly influenced by the magnitude of the external shear at that level, and
they therefore increase towards the base. Consequently, the design of the floor framing
cannot be repetitive as it is in some braced frames. A further result is that sometimes it is not
possible in the lowest stories to accommodate the required depth of girder within the normal
ceiling space. Gravity loading also is resisted by the rigid frame action. Negative moments
are induced in the girders adjacent to the columns causing the mid-span positive moments to
be significantly less than in a simply supported span. In structures in which gravity loads
dictate the design, economics in member sizes that arise from this effect tend to be offset by
the higher cost of the rigid joints. While rigid frames of a typical scale that serve alone to
resist lateral loading have an economic height limit of about 25 stories, smaller scale rigid
frames in the form of a perimeter tube, or typically scaled rigid frames in combination with
shear walls or braced bends can be economic up to much greater heights (Smith and Coull
1991).

Wall-Frame Structure

When shear walls are combined with rigid frames as shown in Figure 2.1, the walls which
tend to deflect in a flexural configuration, and the frames, which tend to deflect in a shear
mode, are constrained to adopt a common deflected shape by the horizontal rigidity of the
girders and slabs. As a consequence, the walls and frames interact horizontally, especially at
the top, to produce a stiffer and stronger structure. An additional, less well known feature of
the wall-frame structure is that, in a carefully tuned structure, the shear in the frame can
be
made approximately uniform over the height, allowing the floor framing to be repetitive.
Although the wall-frame structure is usually perceived as a concrete structural form, with
shear walls and concrete frames, a steel counterpart using braced frames and steel rigid
frames offers similar benefits of horizontal interaction. The braced frames behave with an
overall flexural tendency to interact with the shear mode of the rigid frames (Smith and
Coull 1991).

Flat-Plate and Flat-Slab Structure

The flat-plate structure is the simplest and most logical of all structural forms in that it
consists of uniform slabs, of 125-200 millimeter thickness, connected rigidly to supporting
columns. The system, which is essentially of reinforced concrete, is very economical in
having a flat soffit requiring the most uncomplicated form work and, because the soffit can
be used as the ceiling, in creating a minimum possible floor depth. Under lateral loading the
behavior of a flat-plate structure is similar to that of a rigid frame, that is, its lateral
resistance depends on the flexural stiffness of the components and their connections, with the
slabs corresponding to the girders of the rigid frame. The flat plate structure is economical
for spans of up to 7.6 meter, above which drop panels can be added to create a flat-slab
structure for spans of up to 11.6 meter. Buildings that depend entirely for their lateral
resistance on flat-plate or flat-slab action are economical up to about 25 stories (Smith and
Coull 1991).

Braced Frame Structures

In braced frames the lateral resistance of the structure is provided by diagonal members that,
together with the girders, form the web of the vertical truss, with the columns acting as
the
chords. Because the horizontal shear on the building is resisted by the horizontal
components of the axial tensile or compressive action in the web members, bracing systems
are highly efficient in resisting lateral loads. Bracing is generally as an exclusively steel
system because the diagonals are inevitably subjected to tension for one or the other
directions of lateral loading. Concrete bracing of the double diagonal form is sometimes
used, however, with each diagonal designed as a compression member to carry the full
external shear. The efficiency of bracing, in being able to produce a laterally very stiff
structure for a minimum of additional material, makes it an economical structural form for
any height of building, up to the very tallest. External large scale, extending over many
stories and bays has been used to produce not only highly efficient structures, but
aesthetically attractive buildings (Smith and Coull 1991).

Eccentric Braced Frame Structures

Concentric braced frames are excellent from strength and stiffness considerations and are
therefore used widely either by themselves or in conjunction with moment frames when the
lateral loads are caused by wind. However, they are of questionable value in seismic regions
because of their poor inelastic behavior. Moment-resistant frames possess considerable
energy dissipation characteristics but are relatively flexible when sized from strength
considerations alone. Eccentric bracing is a unique structural system that attempts to
combine the strength and stiffness of a braced frame with the inelastic behavior and energy
dissipation characteristics of a moment frame. The system is called eccentric because
deliberate eccentricities are employed between beam-to-column and beam-to brace
connections as shown in Figure 2.2. The eccentric beam element acts as a fuse by limiting
large forces from entering and causing buckling of braces. The eccentric segment of the
beam, called the link, under goes flexural or shear yielding prior to formation of plastic
hinges in the other bending members and well before buckling of any compression members.
Thus the system maintains stability even under large inelastic deformations. The required
stiffness during wind or minor earthquakes is maintained because no plastic hinges are
formed under this loads and all behavior is elastic. Although the deformation is larger than in
a concentrically braced frame because of bending and shear deformation of the fuse,
its
contribution to deflection is not significant because of the relatively small length of the fuse.
Thus the elastic stiffness of the eccentrically braced frame can be considered the same as the
concentrically braced frame for all practical purposes. The ductile behavior is highly
desirable when the structure is called upon to absorb energy such as when subjected to strong
ground motions (Taranath 1998).

Figure 2.1 Wall-frame structure Figure 2.2 Eccentric braced frame

2.3 Floor Systems of Multistory Buildings

An appropriate floor system is an important factor in the overall economy of the building.
Some of the factors that influence the choice of floor system are architectural. Other factors
affecting the choice of floor system are related to its intended structural performance, such as
whether it is to participate in the lateral load-resisting system, and to its construction, for
example, whether there is urgency in the speed of erection.

2.3.1 Reinforced Concrete Floor Systems

Different types of RC floor systems are being used for building construction. Some typically
used floor systems are described below in brief.
One-Way Slab on Beams or Walls

A solid slab of up to 200 millimeter thick shown in Figure 2.3, spanning continuously over
walls or beams up to 7.3 meter apart, provides a floor system requiring simple formwork,
with simple reinforcement. The system is heavy and inefficient in its use of both concrete
and reinforcement. It is appropriate for use in cross-wall and cross-frame residential high-
rise construction and when construction in a number of uninterrupted continuous spans lends
itself to pre-stressing (Smith and Coull 1991).

One-Way Pan Joists and Beams

A thin, mesh-reinforced slab shown in Figure 2.4 sits on closely spaced cast-in-place joists
spanning between major beams which transfer the loads to the columns. The slab may be as
thin as 65 millimeter while the joists are from 150 to 500 millimeter in depth and spaced
from 500 to 750 millimeter centers. The compositely acting slab and joists form in effect a
set of closely spaced T-beams, capable of large, up to 12 meter, spans. The joists are formed
between reusable pans that are positioned to set the regular width of the joist, as well as any
special widths (Smith and Coull 1991).

One-Way Slab on Beams and Girders

A one-way slab shown in Figure 2.5 spans between beams at a relatively close spacing while
the beams are supported by girders that transfer the load to the columns. The short spanning
may be thin, from 75 to 150 millimeter thick, while the system is capable of providing long
spans of up to 14 meter. The principal merits of the system are its long span capability and
its compatibility with a two-way lateral load resisting rigid-frame structure (Smith and Coull
1991).

Figure 2.3 One-way slabs on beams or walls Figure 2.4 One-way pan joists and beams
Figure 2.5 One-way slab on beams and girders Figure 2.6 Two-way flat plate

Two-Way Flat Plate

A uniform thick, two-way reinforced slab shown in Figure 2.6 is supported directly by
columns or individual short walls. It can span up to 8 meter in the ordinary reinforced form
and up to 11 meter when post tensioned. Because of its simplicity, it is the most economical
floor system in terms of form work and reinforcement. Its uniform thickness allows
considerable freedom in the location of the supporting columns and walls and, with the
possibility of using the clear soffit as a ceiling, it results in minimum story height (Smith and
Coull 1991).

Two-Way Flat Slab

The flat slab shown in Figure 2.7 differs from the flat plate in having capitals and/or drop
panels at the tops of the columns. The capitals increase the shear capacity, while the drop
panels increase both the shear and negative moment capacities at the supports, where the
maximum values occur. The flat slab is therefore more appropriate than the plate for heavier
loading and longer spans and, in similar situations, would require less concrete and
reinforcement. It is most suitably used in square, or near-to-square, arrangements (Smith and
Coull 1991).

Waffle Flat Slabs

A slab shown in Figure 2.8 is supported by a square grid of closely spaced joists with filler
panels over the columns. The slab and joists are poured integrally over square. Domed forms
that are omitted around the columns to create the filler panels. The forms, which are of sizes
up to 750 millimeter square and up to 500 millimeter deep, provide a geometrically
interesting soffit, which is often left without further finish as the ceiling (Smith and Coull
1991).

Two-Way Slab and Beam

The slab shown in Figure 2.9 spans two ways between orthogonal sets of beams that transfer
the load to the columns or walls. The two-way system allows a thinner slab and is
economical in concrete and reinforcement. It is also compatible with a lateral load-resisting
rigid-frame structure. The maximum length-to-width ratio for a slab to be effective in two
directions is approximately 2.

Figure 2.7 Two-way flat slab Figure 2.8 Waffle slabs Figure 2.9 Two-way slab and beam

2.3.2 Non-Composite Floor Systems of Steel Framing

The steel-framed floor system is characterized by a reinforced concrete slab supported on a

steel form work consisting variously of joists, beams, and girders that transfer the gravity
loading to the columns. The slab component is usually one-way with either a cast-in-place
solid reinforced concrete slab from 100 to 175 millimeter thick, or a concrete on metal deck
slab with a variety of possible section shapes and a minimum slab thickness from 65
millimeter, or a slab of precast units laid on steel beams and covered by a thin concrete
topping. A major consideration in the weight and cost of a steel frame building is the weight
of the slab. A floor arrangement with shorter spanning, thinner slabs is desirable. Longer
span, closer spaced beams supporting a short-spanning slab is a typical arrangement meeting
these arrangements (Smith and Coull 1991). The following types of steel framing are
categorized according to the spanning arrangement of the supporting steel frame work.
One-Way Beam System

A rectangular grid of columns supports sets of parallel longer span beams at a relatively
close spacing, with the slab spanning the shorter spans transversely to the beams. In cross-
frame structures, the beams at partition lines may be deepened to participate in lateral load
resisting rigid frames or braced bents. One way beam systems are shown in Figure 2.10.

(a) Precast units (b) One-way slab on metal deck (c) One-way beam system in steel

Figure 2.10 one-way beam systems

Two-Way Beam System

In buildings in which columns are required to be farther apart in both directions, a two-way
frame system of girders and beams is often used, with the slab spanning between the beams.
To minimize the total structural depth of the floor frame, the heavily loaded girders are
aligned with the shorter span and the relatively lightly loaded secondary beams with the
longer span. Two way beam system is shown in Figure 2.11.

Three-Way Beam System

In buildings in which the columns have to be very widely spaced to allow large column-free
areas, a three-way beam system may be necessary. A deep lattice girder may form the
primary component with beams or open web joists forming the secondary and tertiary
systems. In each case the system is arranged to provide relatively short spans for the
supported concrete slab. Three way beam system is shown in Figure 2.12.
 Figure 2.11 Two-way beam system Figure 2.12 Three-way beam system

2.3.3 Composite Floor Systems of Steel Framing

The use of steel members to support a concrete floor slab offers the possibility of composite
construction in which the steel members are joined to the slab by shear connectors so that the
slab serves as a compression flange. In one simple and constructionally convenient slab
system, steel decking, which in often used to act merely as rapidly erected permanent
framework for a bar-reinforced slab, serves also as the reinforcement as the concrete slab in
a composite role, using thicker wall sections with indentations or protrusions for shear
connectors. Slabs may also be designed to act compositely with the supporting beams by the
more usual forms of stud, angle, or channel shear connectors, so that the slab alone spans
the short distance between the beams while the compositely acting slab and beam provide
the supporting system. The further combination of a concrete slab on metal decking with
shear connectors welded through to the supporting beam or truss is an efficient floor system.
Composite floor system is shown in Figure 2.13.

(a) Steel deck composite slab (b) Composite frame (c) Composite frame and steel deck
Figure 2.13 Composite floor system
2.4 Load Considerations

Dead load and live load are gravity loads act vertically. Earthquake and wind load acts
horizontally. These loads are basic loads to be considered for building design. BNBC 1993 is
followed for load considerations.

Dead Loads

Dead load is the vertical load due to the weight of permanent structural and non structural
components of a building such as walls, floors, ceilings, permanent partitions and fixed
service equipments etc. Dead load for a structural member shall be assessed based on the
forces due to:

weight of the member itself,

weight of all materials of construction incorporated into the building to be supported
permanently by the member,
weight of permanent partitions,
weight of fixed service equipments, and
net effect of pre-stressing.

When partition walls are indicated on the plans, their weight shall be considered as dead load
acting as concentrated line loads in their actual positions on the floor. The loads due to
anticipated partition walls, which are not indicated on the plans, shall be treated as live loads.

Weight of fixed service equipment and other permanent machinery, such as electrical feeders
and other machinery, heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems, lifts and escalators,
plumbing stakes and risers etc. shall be included as dead load whenever such equipments are
supported by structural members.

Live Loads

Live load is the load superimposed by the use or occupancy of the building not including the
environmental loads such as wind load, rain load, earthquake load or dead load. The live
loads used for the structural design of floors, roof and the supporting members shall be the
greatest applied loads arising from the intended use or occupancy of the building, or from the
stacking of materials and the use of equipment and propping during construction, but shall
not be less than the minimum design live loads set out by the provisions of any standard
code. For live load considerations BNBC 1993 is followed.

2
Pre-composite construction live load for composite floor system is 25 psf (1.2 kN/m )
according to AISC Design Examples, Version 14 (AISC 2011).

When partitions, not indicated on the plans, are anticipated to be placed on the floors, their
weight shall be included as an additional live load acting as concentrated line loads in an
arrangement producing the most severe effect on the floor, unless it can be shown that a
more favorable arrangement of the partitions shall prevail during the future use of the floor.
In the case of light partitions, wherein the total weight per meter run is not greater than 5.5
kN, a uniformly distributed live load may be applied on the floor in lieu of the concentrated
line loads. Such uniform live load per square meter shall be at least 33% of the weight per
2
meter run of the partitions, subject to a minimum of 1.2 kN/m (BNBC 1993).

Live loads on regular purpose roofs shall be the greatest applied loads produced during use
by movable objects such as planters and people, and those induced during maintenance by
workers, equipments and materials but shall not be less than those specified in BNBC 1993.

Reduction of live load is permitted for primary structural members supporting floor or roof,
including beam, girder, truss, flat slab, flat plate, column, pier, footing and the like. Where
applicable, the reduced live load on a primary structural member shall be obtained by
multiplying the corresponding unreduced uniformly distributed live load with an appropriate
live load reduction factor as per BNBC 1993.

Lateral Loads

Lateral loads are wind load and earth quake load. The minimum design wind load on
buildings and components thereof shall be determined based on the velocity of the wind, the
shape and size of the building and the terrain exposure condition of the site as set forth by
the provisions of BNBC 1993.

Minimum design earthquake forces for buildings, structures or components thereof shall be
determined in accordance with the provisions of BNBC 1993. For primary framing systems
of buildings or structures, the design seismic lateral forces shall be calculated by the
equivalent static force method. Overall design of buildings and structures to resist seismic
ground motion and other forces shall comply with the applicable design requirements.

2.5 Load Combinations

Buildings, foundations and structural members shall be investigated for adequate strength to
resist the most unfavorable effect resulting from the various combinations of loads provided
in this section. The most unfavorable effect of loads may also occur when one or more of the
contributing loads are absent or act in the reverse direction. Loads such as F, H, or S shall be
considered in design when their effects are significant. Floor live loads shall not be
considered where their inclusion result in lower stresses in the member under consideration.
The most unfavorable effects from both wind and earthquake loads shall be considered
where appropriate, but they need not be assumed to act simultaneously.

2.5.1 BNBC Load Combinations

Load combinations of ASD and USD methods for RC and steel structure are stated here as
per BNBC 1993. These combinations are followed for the assigned design.

ASD combinations

Provisions of this section shall apply to all construction permitting their use in proportioning
structural members by allowable stress design method. When this method is used in
designing structural members, all loads listed herein shall be considered to act in the
following combinations. The combination that produces the most unfavorable effect shall be
used.

1. D
2. D+L
3. D+S
4. D+(W or E)
5. 0.9D+(W or E)
6. D+(H or F)
7. D+L+(H or F)
8. D+S+L
9. D+S+(W or E)
10. D+L+(W or E)
11. D+L+(H or F)+(W or E)
12. D+S+L+(H or F)+(W or E)

The maximum permissible increase in the allowable stresses of all materials and soil bearing
capacities for working (or allowable) stress design method, when load combinations 7
through 11 mentioned above is used, shall be 33%.

USD combinations

When strength design method is used, structural members and foundations shall be designed
to have strength not less than that required to resist the most unfavorable effect of the
combinations of factored loads are listed below.

For RC and masonry structures:

1. 1.4D
2. 1.4D+1.7L
3. 1.4D+1.4S
4. 0.9D+ 1.3(W or 1.1E)
5. 0.9D+1.7(H or F)
6. 1.4D+1.7L+1.7(H or F)
7. 0.75[1.4 D+1.4S+1.7L]
8. 0.75[1.4 D+1.4S+1.7(W or 1.1E)]
9. 0.75[1.4D+1.7L+1.7W]
10. 0.75[1.4D+1.7L+1.7(H or F)+1.7(W or 1.1E)]
11. 0.75[1.4D+1.4S+1.7L+1.7(H or F)+1.7(W or 1.1E)]
12. 1.4(D+L+E)

For steel structures:

1. 1.4D
2. 1.2D+1.6Lf +0.5(Lr or P)
3. 1.2D+1.6(Lr or P) +(0.5Lf or 0.8W)
4. 1.2D+ 1.3W+0.5 Lf +0.5(Lr or P)
5. 1.2D+1.5E+0.5 Lf
6. 0.9D+(1.3W or 1.5E)

Where D=dead load, E=earthquake load, F=loads due to fluids, H=loads due to weight and
lateral pressure of soil and water in soil, L=Lf + (Lr or P), Lf=live loads due to intended use
and occupancy, Lr=roof live loads, P= loads due to initial rain water ponding, S=self-
straining forces and W=wind load.

2.5.2 AISC LRFD Load Combinations

Load combinations as per AISC LRFD 1993 for design of steel structures are stated here.
These combinations are used for the assigned design. The combinations are as follows.

1.4D
1.2D+1.6L+0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D+1.6(Lr or S or R)+( 0.5L or 0.8W)
1.2D+1.3W+0.5L+0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D 1.0E+0.5L+0.2S
0.9D (1.3W or 1.0E)

Where D=dead load, L=live load, Lr=roof live load, W=wind load, S=snow load,
E=earthquake load and R=rain water or ice load.

2.5.3 ACI Load Combinations

Load combinations for USD method as per ACI 2008 for design of RC structures are stated
here. These combinations are used for the assigned design. The combinations are as follows.

1.2D+1.6L
1.4(D+F)
1.2(D+F+T) +1.6(L+H)+0.5(Lr or S or R)
1.2D+1.6(Lr or S or R)+(1.0L or 0.8W)
1.2D+1.6W+1.0L+0.5(Lr or S or R)
0.9D+1.6W+1.6H
1.2D+1.0E+1.0L+0.2S
0.9D+1.0E+1.6H

Where, D=Dead load, E=Earthquake load, F=Fluid pressure, H=Weight or pressure from
soil, L=Live load, Lr=Roof live load, W=Wind load, S=Snow load, R=Rain water load,
T=Cumulative effects of temperature, creep, shrinkage, and differential settlement.

2.6 Foundation Systems

Before foundation design of a building, appropriate geotechnical investigation of the

proposed project site is required. Performing field investigation, necessary geotechnical data
and sample collection, laboratory test, preparation of geotechnical investigation report with
necessary technical information and recommendations are required for foundation design.
Depending on sub-soil condition and calculated load for foundation design, type of
foundation becomes deep or shallow. If the bearing capacity of sub-soil in reasonable to bear
the load from foundation then shallow foundations may be selected, otherwise deep
foundation may be required.

Shallow Foundations

Spread footing (square or rectangular), combined footing, trapezoidal footing, continuous

footing, strap footing, grid foundation, mat or raft foundation etc. are most common shallow
foundations. When bearing capacity is good enough and design load is medium then spread
footing is most suitable. But when bearing capacity is medium then mat foundation, grid
foundation, continuous footing etc. may be appropriate.

Deep Foundations

In case of heavy design load and low bearing capacity for a particular soil condition, deep
foundation may be required. R.C.C. cast in situ pile foundation, R.C.C. pre-cast pile
foundation, caisson foundation, well foundation, drilled pier, concrete filled steel tube pile
foundation, hollow steel tube pile are most common deep foundations. In Bangladesh,
R.C.C. cast in situ pile is widely used. Pre-cast piles are also being used in many projects.
2.7 Connection Systems

Connection system of structure is very important for structural stability, response to load,
structural behavior and load transfer mechanism. Connection may be rigid, semi-rigid and
hinge depending on restraint condition. Steel and RC structural connection is discussed
below.

2.7.1 Connection of Steel Structure

Simple shear connection and moment connection are commonly used for steel structure.
Moment connection may be partially or fully restrained.

2.7.1.1 Simple Connections

A simple connection transmits a negligible moment across the connection. In the analysis of
the structure, simple connections may be assumed to allow unrestrained relative rotation
between the framing elements being connected. A simple connection shall have sufficient
rotation capacity to accommodate the required rotation determined by the analysis of the
structure. Inelastic rotation of the connection is permitted (AISC Specification, 2005).

2.7.1.2 Moment Connections

A moment connection transmits moment across the connection. Two types of moment
connections, fully restrained and partially restrained, are permitted, as specified below.

Fully-Restrained (FR) or Rigid Moment Connections

A fully-restrained (FR) moment connection transfers moment with a negligible rotation

between the connected members. In the analysis of the structure, the connection may be
assumed to allow no relative rotation. An FR connection shall have sufficient strength and
stiffness to maintain the angle between the connected members at the strength limit states
(AISC Specification, 2005).
Partially-Restrained (PR) or Semi-Rigid Moment Connections

Partially-restrained (PR) moment connections or semi-rigid connections transfer moments,

but the rotation between connected members is not negligible. In the analysis of the
structure, the force-deformation response characteristics of the connection shall be included.
The response characteristics of a PR connection shall be documented in the technical
literature or established by analytical or experimental means. The component elements of a
PR connection shall have sufficient strength, stiffness, and deformation capacity at the
strength limit states (AISC Specification, 2005).

Semi-rigid connections, as the name implies, are those with rotational characteristics
intermediate in degree between fully rigid and simple connections. These connections offer
known rotational restraint at the beam ends resulting in significant reduction in mid-span
gravity moments. Although several specifications such as the AISC, the British, and the
Australian codes permit semi-rigid connections it has rarely been used because of the
difficulty in predicting the rather complex response of these connections. However,
reasonable success has been by another type of partially rigid connection which AISC
designates as Type 2 wind connection, with similar provisions found in the British and
Australian codes (Taranath 1998).

Although the AISC specification permits the designer to take advantage of reduction in the
mid-span moment of a beam with semi-rigid connections, in practice this procedure has not
found wide acceptance primarily because of lack of reliable analytical techniques. The type 2
wind connection, which basically ignores the beam restraint for gravity loads, has found
relatively greater acceptance. Wind connection is designed to resist wind moment (Taranath
1998).

Partially restrained or semi-rigid framing occurs when rotational restraint is approximately

between 20% and 90% of that necessary to prevent relative angle change. This means that
with semi-rigid framing the moment transmitted across the joint is neither zero (or a small
amount) as in simple framing, nor is it the full continuity as assumed in elastic rigid-frame
analysis. In LRFD the use of PR connection depends on the evidence of
predictable
proportion of full end restraint. In ASD, the design of semi-rigid connections requires
a
dependable and known moment capacity intermediate in degree between the rigidity
of
fully restraint and flexibility of unrestrained connection. Semi-rigid connections are not used
in structures when plastic analysis is used in design, and are not commonly used in allowable
stress design because of the difficulty in obtaining the moment-rotation relationship for a
given connection (Salmon and Johnson 1995). However, with great availability of high-
strength steels required in designing this type of connection, Salmon and Johnson (1995)
believe that use of semi-rigid connections will increase.

Analysis of frames that incorporate Type 2 wind and semi-rigid (Type 3) connections must
include considerations of:
Connection ductility.
Evaluation of the drift characteristics of frames with less than fully rigid
connections.
Effect of partial restraints on column and frame stability.

2.7.2 Plastic Hinge for Steel Structure

Redistribution of the moments occurs during loading beyond the elastic range in usual
statically indeterminate situations; that is, the bending moment diagram after a plastic hinge
has occurred will no longer be proportional to the elastic bending moment diagram. Once the
plastic moment strength Mp has been reached, the section can offer no additional resistance
to rotation, behaving as a hinge but with constant resistance Mp, a condition known as a
plastic hinge. In general, any combination of three hinges, real or plastic, in a span will result
in a collapse mechanism (Salmon and Johnson 1995).

2.7.3 RC Structural Joint

RC member connections are inherently fully restrained or rigid connection. All the
connections like column-beam connections, beam-girder connections, beam-slab connections
etc. are usually cast monolithically by concrete.

2.7.4 RC Expansion Joint

Spacing of a functional (contraction and expansion) joints depends upon a great number of
factors: shrinkage properties of the concrete, type of exposure to temperature and humidity,
resistance to movement (restraint), thickness of members, amount of reinforcement,
structural function of the member, external loads, soil conditions, structural configurations,
and other conditions (Fintel 1986). Many of these factors are exclusive variables, sometimes
difficult to establish. As a consequence, both experience and opinion on joint spacing vary
greatly.

In reinforced concrete elements, joint spacing and reinforcement are interrelated variables,
and the choice of one should be related to the other. As yet, however, a reliable relationship
between the two quantities does not appear to have been established. Sufficient steel must be
included to control cracking between the joints. If the joint spacing is increased, the
reinforcement must be increased correspondingly to control cracking over the longer
distance. There is a considerable divergence of opinion on spacing of movement joints
(expansion and contraction) with recommendations for expansion joints varying from 30 to
60 meter, while for contraction joints, they vary from a few meter up to 25
meter.

Spacing of expansion joints in buildings is a controversial issue. There is a great divergence

of opinion concerning the importance of expansion joints in concrete construction. Some
experts recommended joint spacing as low as 9 meter while others consider expansion joints
entirely unnecessary. Joint spacing of roughly 45 to 60 meter for concrete structures seems to
be typical ranges recommended by various authorities. Divergent viewpoints are reflected
both in private practice and in building codes. The existence of such opposing opinions,
which, obviously, cannot be equally valid as a consideration in a single structure, is
nonetheless understandable, since it is based on divergence of previous experience.

Those who advocate the complete omission of joints in concrete construction state that
o
drying shrinkage is greater than the expansion caused by a 38 C increase in temperature;
therefore, any temperature increase will tend to close up shrinkage cracks, and there will be
practically no compressive stress in the concrete due to thermal expansion. In a 1940 report
of a joint committee (AIA, AISC, ACI, AREA, PCA) it was suggested that, in localities,
with large temperature ranges, expansion joints should be provided every 61 meter. In
middle climates, 92 meter was suggested.

In the 1940s a distinct trend started toward the elimination of expansion joints in long
buildings. This trend is continuous into the present time. Even in locations with large
temperature ranges, buildings up to 122 and 153 meter have been constructed without
expansion joints, and seemingly the performance has been satisfactory. The following are
examples of such buildings: The General Accounting Office Building, Washington, D.C.
The 1972 Minimum Property Standards-Manual of Acceptable Practices by the
FHA recommends that spacing of expansion joints for buildings not exceeded the values
given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Spacing of expansion joint
Types of Outside temperature Maximum joint
building variations spacing(meter)
o
Heated Up to 21 C 183
o
Above 21 C 122-153
o
Unheated Up to 21 C 92
o
Above 21 C 61

2.8 Serviceability Criteria

Serviceability is defned in the AISC Specification as a state in which the function of

a building, its appearance, maintainability, durability, and comfort of its occupants are
preserved under normal usage. Although serviceability issues have always been a
design consideration, changes in codes and materials have added importance to these
matters. The
shift to a limit-states basis for design is one example. Since 1986, both the AISC LRFD and
AISC ASD Specifications have been based upon the limit-states design approach in which
two categories of limit states are recognized: strength limit states and serviceability limit
states. Strength limit states control the safety of the structure and must be met. Serviceability
limit states define the functional performance of the structure and should be met. The
distinction between the two categories centers on the consequences of exceeding the limit
state. The consequence of exceeding a strength limit may be buckling, instability, yielding,
fracture, etc. These consequences are the direct response of the structure or element to load.
In general, serviceability issues are different in that they involve the response of people and
objects to the behavior of the structure under load (West et al. 2003). For example, the
occupants may feel uncomfortable if there are unacceptable deformations, drifts, or
vibrations.

Whether or not a structure or element has passed a limit state is a matter of judgment. In the
case of strength limits, the judgment is technical and the rules are established by building
codes and design specifications. In the case of serviceability limits, the judgments are
frequently non-technical. They involve the perceptions and expectations of building owners
and occupants. Serviceability limits have, in general, not been codified, in part because the
appropriate or desirable limits often vary from application to application. As such, they are
more a part of the contractual agreements with the owner than life-safety related. Thus, it is
proper that they remain a matter of contractual agreement and not specified in the building
codes (West et al. 2003).

In a perfect world the distinction between strength and serviceability would disappear. There
would be no problems or failures of any kind. In the real world all design methods are based
upon a finite, but very small probability of exceedance. Because of the non-catastrophic
consequences of exceeding a serviceability limit state, a higher probability of exceedance is
allowed by current practice than for strength limit states. The foregoing is not intended to say
that serviceability concerns are unimportant. In fact, the opposite is true. By having few
codified standards, the designer is left to resolve these issues in consultation with the owner
to determine the appropriate or desired requirements (West et al. 2003).

Serviceability problems cost more money to correct than would be spent preventing the
problem in the design phase. Perhaps serviceability discussions with the owner should
address the trade-off between the initial cost of the potential level of design vs. the potential
mitigation costs associated with a more relaxed design. Such a comparison is only possible
because serviceability events are by definition not safety related. The Metal Building
Manufactures Association (MBMA) in its Common Industry Practices (MBMA, 2002) states
that the customer or his or her agent must identify for the metal building engineer any and all
criteria so that the metal building can be designed to be suitable for its specific
conditions
of use and compatible with other materials used in the Metal Building
System.
Nevertheless, it also points out the requirement for the active involvement of the customer in
the design stage of a structure and the need for informed discussion of standards and levels
of building performance. Likewise the AISC Code of Standard Practice (AISC, 2000) states
that in those instances where the fabricator has both design and fabrication responsibility, the
owner must provide the performance criteria for the structural steel frame.
Numerous
serviceability design criteria exist, but they are spread diversely through codes, journal
articles, technical committee reports, manufacturers literature, office standards and the
preferences of individual engineers (West et al. 2003).
2.8.1 Story Drift and Top Deflection

Lateral deflection or drift is the magnitude of displacement at the top of a building relative to
its base. The ratio of the total lateral deflection to the building height, or the story deflection
to the story height, is referred to as the deflection index. In the absence of code limitations in
the past, buildings were designed for wind loads with arbitrary values of drift, ranging from
about 1/300 to 1/600, depending on the judgment of the engineer. Deflections based on drift
limitation of about 1/300 used several decades ago were computed assuming the wind forces
to be resisted by the structural frame alone. In reality, the heavy masonry partitions and
exterior cladding common to buildings of that period considerably increased the lateral
stiffness of such structures. In contrast, in most buildings that have been constructed in
recent years, the frame alone resists the lateral forces. The dry-wall interior partition and the
light curtain-wall exterior contribute little to the lateral resistance of modern buildings
(Fintel 1986).

Up to 1983, only the Uniform Building Code, BOCA, and the National Building Code of
Canada, among North American model building codes, specify a maximum value of the
deflection index 1/500, corresponding to the design wind loading. Also, ACI Committee 435
recommends a drift limit of 1/500. At that time, many engineering offices, owing to
competitive pressures, have somewhat relaxed the drift criterion by allowing an overall drift
of slightly over H/500 with the maximum drift in any one story not to exceed H/400. Also,
in cases where wind tunnel studies indicate wind forces in the building to be smaller than
those specified in the code, designers take the liberty of applying the H/500 criterion to the
smaller (wind tunnel) wind forces. Most of the modern tall reinforced concrete buildings
containing shear walls have computed deflections ranging between H/800 and H/1200 due to
the inherent rigidity of the shear wall-frame interaction (Fintel 1986).

Sound engineering judgment is required when deciding on the drift index limit to be
imposed. However, for conventional structures, the preferred acceptable range is 0.0015 to
0.003 (that is, approximately 1/650 to 1/350). It does not necessarily follow that the dynamic
comfort criteria will also be satisfactory. Generally, lower values should be used for hotels or
apartment buildings than for office building, since noise and movement tend to be more
disturbing in the former. Consideration may be given to whether the stiffening effects of any
internal partitions, in-fills, or claddings are included in the deflection calculations. In
addition to static deflection calculations, the question of the dynamic response, involving the
lateral acceleration, amplitude, and period of oscillation, may also have to be considered
(Smith and Coull 1991).

Lateral deflections must be limited to prevent second-order P-Delta effects due to gravity
loading being of such a magnitude as to precipitate collapse. In terms of the serviceability
limit states, deflections must first be maintained at a sufficiently low level to allow the
proper functioning of nonstructural components such as elevators and doors; second, to
avoid distress in the structure, to prevent excessive cracking and consequent loss of stiffness,
and to avoid any redistribution of load to non-load-bearing partitions, infills, cladding, or
glazing; and third, the structure must be sufficiently stiff to prevent dynamic motions
becoming large enough to cause discomfort to occupants, prevent delicate work being
undertaken, or affect sensitive equipment. In extreme circumstances, it may be necessary to
add dampers, which may be of the passive or active type (Smith and Coull 1991).

As per BNBC 1993, story drift, shall be limited as follows,

(i) 0.04h/R 0.005h for T< 0.7 second.
(ii) 0.03h/R 0.004h for T 0.7
second.
(iii) 0.0025h for unreinforced masonry structure.
Where, h=height of the building or structure, T=fundamental period of vibration in seconds
of the structure for the direction under consideration and R=response modification factor
(shall be applicable only when earthquake forces are present)
.
The drift limits may be exceeded where it can be demonstrated that greater drift can be
tolerated by both structural and nonstructural elements without affecting life safety.

2.8.2 Vertical Deflection

In general, deflections refers to how much a material can bend and flex over the course
of its lifetime as part of a building components (West et al. 2003). According to AISC
Design Examples, Version 14 (AISC 2011), pre-composite deflections of steel girders and
beams
must be smaller than equal to L/360 or 1 inch (25 mm) which is smaller. Composite
deflections of steel girders and beams also must be smaller than equal to L/360 or 1 inch (25
mm) considering 50% live load which is smaller. Allowable limit for deflection adopted
from IBC is shown in Table 2.2.
 Table 2.2 Deflection limits, adopted from IBC
Live load Snow or Dead load+
Building component deflection Wind load Live load
deflection deflection
Supporting plastered L /360 L /360 L /240
ceiling

Roof Supporting non- L /240 L /240 L /180

member plastered ceiling

Not supporting ceiling L /180 L /180 L /120

Floor members L /360 - L /240
Where, L=Length of member

2.8.3 Floor Vibrations and Dynamic Response

For floor serviceability, stiffness and resonance are dominant considerations in the design of
steel floor structures and footbridges. The first known stiffness criterion appeared nearly 170
years ago. Tredgold (1828) wrote that girders overlong spans should be "made deep to avoid
the inconvenience of not being able to move on the floor without shaking everything in the
room". Traditionally, soldiers "break step" when marching across bridges to avoid large,
potentially dangerous, resonant vibration. A traditional stiffness criterion for steel floors
limits the live load deflection of beams or girders supporting "plastered ceilings" to
span/360. This limitation, along with restricting member span to depth rations to 24 or less,
have been widely applied to steel framed floor systems in an attempt to control vibrations,
but with limited success. Resonance has been ignored in the design of floors and footbridges
until recently. Approximately 30 years ago, problems arose with vibrations induced by
walking on steel-joist supported floors that satisfied traditional stiffness criteria. Since that
time much has been learned about the loading function due to walking and the potential for
resonance (Murray et al. 1997).

More recently, rhythmic activities, such as aerobics and high-impact dancing, have caused
serious floor vibration problems due to resonance. A number of analytical procedures have
been developed which allow a structural designer to assess the floor structure for occupant
comfort for a specific activity and for suitability for sensitive equipment. Generally, these
analytical tools require the calculation of the first natural frequency of the floor system and
the maximum amplitude of acceleration, velocity or displacement for a reference excitation.
An estimate of damping in the floor is also required in some instances. A human comfort
scale or sensitive equipment criterion is then used to determine whether the floor system
meets serviceability requirements. Some of the analytical tools in corporate limits on
acceleration into a single design formula whose parameters are estimated by the designer
(Murray et al. 1997).

Human Response to Floor Motion

Human response to floor motion is a very complex phenomenon, involving the magnitude of
the motion, the environment surrounding the sensor, and the human sensor. A continuous
motion (steady-state) can be more annoying than motion caused by an infrequent impact
(transient). The threshold of perception of floor motion in a busy workplace can be higher
than in a quiet apartment. The reaction of a senior citizen living on the fiftieth floor can be
considerably different from that of a young adult living on the second floor of an apartment
complex, if both are subjected to the same motion. The reaction of people who feel vibration
depends very strongly on what they are doing. People in offices or residences do not like
"distinctly perceptible" vibration (peak acceleration of about 0.5 percent of the acceleration
of gravity, g), whereas people taking part in an activity will accept vibrations approximately
10 times greater (5 percent g or more). People dining beside a dance floor, lifting weights
beside an aerobics gym, or standing in a shopping mall, will accept something in between
(about 1.5 percent g). Sensitivity within each occupancy also varies with duration of
vibration and remoteness of source. The above limits are for vibration frequencies between
4Hz and 8Hz. Outside this frequency range, people accept higher vibration accelerations
(Murray et al. 1997).

Human Response to Acceleration

Considerable research in the last 20 years has been conducted on the subject of determining
perception threshold values for acceleration caused by building motion (Chen and
Robertson, 1972; Khan and Parmelee, 1971 and ASCE, 1981). Much of this work has also
attempted to formulate design guidelines for tolerance thresholds to be used in the design of
tall and slender buildings. Some of the earliest attempts to quantify the problem were
performed by Chang (Chang, 1967 and Chang, 1972) who proposed peak acceleration
limits
for different comfort levels that were extrapolated from data in the aircraft industry.
Changs
proposed limits are stated in Table
2.3.

Table 2.3 Human response to acceleration

Peak Acceleration Comfort Limit

< 0.5% g Not Perceptible
0.5% to 1.5% g Threshold of
Perceptibility
1.5% to 5.0% g Annoying
5% to 15.0% g Very Annoying
> 15% g Intolerable

Building Drift and Motion

Perception

Engineers designing tall buildings have long recognized the need for controlling annoying
vibrations to protect the psychological well being of the occupants. Prior to the advent of
wind tunnel studies this need was addressed using rule-of-thumb drift ratios of
approximately
1/400 to 1/600 and code specified loads. Recent research (Islam, Ellingwood and Corotis,
1990), based on measurement of wind forces in the wind tunnel, has clearly shown
that adherence to commonly accepted lateral drift criteria, per se, does not explicitly ensure
satisfactory performance with regard to motion perception. The results of one such study
(Islam, Ellingwood and Corotis, 1990) for two square buildings having height/width ratios
of
6/1 and 8/1 where each is designed to varying drift ratios. At drift ratios of 1/400 and 1/500
neither building conforms to acceptable standards for acceleration limits. The reason that
drift ratios by themselves do not adequately control motion perception is because they
only address stiffness and do not recognize the important contribution of mass and damping,
which together with stiffness, are the predominant parameters affecting acceleration in tall
buildings components (West et al. 2003).

Wind Induced Motion

If a tall flexible structure is subjected to lateral or torsional deflections under the action of
fluctuating wind loads, the resulting oscillatory movements can induce a wide range of
responses in the buildings occupants, ranging from mild discomfort to acute nausea.
Motions
that have psychological or physiological effects on the occupants may thus result in
an otherwise acceptable structure becoming an undesirable or even un-rentable building.
There are as yet no universally accepted international standards for comfort criteria, although
they are under consideration, and engineers must base their design criteria on an
assessment of published data. It is generally agreed that acceleration is the predominant
parameter in determining human response to vibration, but other factors such as period,
amplitude, body orientation, visual and acoustic cues, and even past experience can be
influential (Smith and Coull 1991)

Dynamic wind pressure sinusoidal or narrow-band random vibration motions of the building,
which will generally oscillate in both along-wind and cross-wind directions, and possibly
rotate about a vertical axis. The magnitudes of the three displacement components will
depend on the velocity distribution and direction of the wind, and on the shape, mass, and
stiffness properties of the structure. In certain cases, the effects of cross-wind motions of the
structure may be greater than those due to the along-wind motions (Smith and Coull 1991).

2.8.4 Fire Resistance

An important objective of building codes and regulations is to provide a fire-resistive built

environment. Thus, building fire safety regulations contain numerous provisions including
directives for the minimum number of exits, the maximum travel distances to exits,
minimum exit widths, fire compartment requirements, fire detection and suppression
mandates, and the protection of structural members in buildings.

Although structural steel offers the advantage of being noncombustible, the effective yield
strength and modulus of elasticity reduce at elevated temperatures. The yield strength of
structural steel maintains at least 85 percent of its normal value up to temperatures of
approximately 800F (427C). The strength continues to diminish as temperatures increase
and at temperatures in the range of 1300 F (704 C), the yield strength may be only 20
percent of the maximum value. The modulus of elasticity also diminishes at elevated
temperatures. Thus, both strength and stiffness decrease with increases in temperature.
Measures can be taken to minimize or eliminate adverse effects. An obvious approach is to
eliminate the heat source by extinguishing the fire or by generating an alert so that an
extinguishing action can be initiated. Extinguishing systems such as sprinklers and smoke
and heat detection devices are responses to this approach and are classified as active fire
protection systems (Ruddy et al. 2003).

Another approach to improving the fire safety of a steel structure is to delay the rate of
temperature increase to the steel to provide time for evacuation of the environment, to allow
combustibles to be exhausted without structural consequence, and /or to increase the time for
extinguishing the fire. This approach, which involves insulating the steel or providing a heat
sink, is classified as a passive fire protection system. Such a system is using Spray-Applied
Fire Resistive Material (SFRM). The typical approach to satisfying the passive protection
system objective is prescriptive. Buildings are classified according to use and occupancy by
the building code. For each occupancy classification there are height and area limitations that
are dependent upon the level of fire resistance provided. For instance, building providing for
business uses may have a height and floor area requiring building elements to be
noncombustible and have a fire resistance rating of 2 hours. Then a tested floor assembly
that provides a 2-hour fire resistance rating is identified and, as necessary, adjustments to the
specifics of the tested assembly are made to match the actual construction. Thus, the required
level of fire resistance is provided based on tests and extrapolation of test results. Improving
the fire resistance of steel-framed structures using a passive system is only one of the
strategies for providing fire-safe structures. Improvements in fire safety are most effective
when used in conjunction with active systems (Ruddy et al. 2003).

An alternative approach to fire-safe construction is performance based. Under this option,

calculations are prepared to predict a level of performance of the structure in a fire
environment. Extensive research is progressing toward a thorough understanding of the
behavior of steel-framed structures when exposed to fire, and an increase in the use of
alternative design methods is inevitable (Ruddy et al. 2003).

2.8.5 Camber

Camber may or may not be a solution to a serviceability issue. In most instances, the amount
of total movement is of concern rather than the relative movement from the specified floor
elevation, in which case camber is not an appropriate solution. There are, however, situations
where camber is appropriate, such as in places where it is possible to sight down the
underside of exposed framing.
Camber tolerances are established in the AISC Code of Standard Practice as follows For
beams that are equal to or less than 50 ft in length, the variation shall be equal to or less
1
than minus zero/plus /2 in. For beams that are greater than50 ft in length, the variation shall
be
1 1
equal to or less than minus zero/plus /2 in. plus /8 in. for each 10 ft or fraction thereof in
excess of 50 ft in length. These tolerances are set with the worthy goal of ensuring
positive camber, but it should be noted that there is a bias toward over cambering. The AISC
Code of
Standard Practice states For the purpose of inspection, camber shall be measured in
the
Fabricators shop in the unstressed
condition.

This requirement is further amplified which states: Inspection of shop work by the
inspector shall be performed in the fabricators shop to the fullest extent possible.
Again states:
Rejection of material or workmanship that is not in conformance with the contract
documents shall be permitted at any time during the progress of the work. The
inspection of camber is an exception to this general principle. Unlike other physical
characteristics of a
fabricated beam or girder, such as yield strength, dimensions, welds, etc., the camber in a
beam can change as the member is handled, shipped, unloaded and raised into position. The
Code commentary provides the following explanation of this phenomenon. Camber can
vary from that induced in the shop due to factors that include:

a. The release of stresses in members over time and in varying applications,

b. The effects of the dead weight of the

member,

c. The restraint caused by the end connections in the erected state, and

d. The effects of additional dead load that may ultimately be intended to be applied, if
any.

Because of the unique nature of camber in beams and the limits on the inspection for
conformity to the project requirements for camber, it is incumbent on the specifier
to recognize these limits and prepare the construction documents accordingly. It is common
3
practice not to camber beams when the indicated camber is /4 in. or less. The AISC Code
of Standard Practice provides that if no camber is specified, horizontal members are to be
fabricated and erect beams with incidental camber upward. The AISC Code also
provides
that beams received by the Fabricator with 75 percent of the specified camber require
no
further cambering. Because of the provisions, it should be expected that all framing members
should have at least some upward camber at the initiation of concreting operations.
However, given the limits presented there will be instances of downward deflection
below level
during concreting. To control the excessive accumulation of concrete in the deflected
bay Ruddy (1986), quoting Fisher/West, recommends that the total accumulated
deflection in a bay due to dead load be limited to L/360, not to exceed 1 in. The foregoing
discussion on determining and specifying camber is intended to impress upon the
designer of the framing to be judicious in determining cambers and to be pro-active in
communicating the basis of the camber determinations (West et al. 2003).

2.8.6 Other Serviceability

Requirements

Other important serviceability requirements are expansion and contraction, connection slip,
corrosion, fatigue, ponding of rain water on roof, durability, column shortening, long term
deflection etc. for steel structure.

Expansion and Contraction

Expansion and contraction is discussed to a limited extent. The goal is to discuss those
aspects of primary and secondary steel framing behavior as they impact non-structural
building components. For many types of low-rise commercial and light industrial projects,
expansion and contraction in a limited context are rarely an issue. This does not mean that
the topic of expansion and contraction is unimportant and, of course, the opposite is true. For
large and/or tall structures, careful consideration is required to accommodate absolute and
relative expansion and contraction of the framing and the non-structural components (West et
al. 2003).

Connection Slip

The various drift and deflection limits include the movements due to connection slip. Where
connection slip, or especially the effect of accumulated connection slip in addition to flexural
and/or axial deformations, will produce movements in excess of the recommended
guidelines, slip-critical joints should be considered. Slip-critical joints are also required in
specific instances. It should be noted that joints made with snug-tightened or pre-tensioned
bolts in standard holes will not generally result in serviceability problems for individual
members or low-rise frames components (West et al. 2003). Careful consideration should be
given to other situations components.
Corrosion

Corrosion, if left unattended, can lead to impairment of structural capacity. Corrosion is also
a serviceability concern as it relates to the performance of non-structural elements
maintenance. The primary concerns are the control or elimination of staining of architectural
surfaces and prevention of rust formation, especially inside assemblies where it can induce
stresses due to the expansive nature of the oxidation process components (West et al. 2003).
Again, the solutions are proper detailing and maintenance.

Fatigue

Fatigue criteria applies to members and connections subject to high cycle loading within the
elastic range of stresses of frequency and magnitude sufficient to initiate cracking and
progressive failure, which defines the limit state of fatigue.

The provisions for fatigue apply to stresses calculated on the basis of service loads. The
maximum permitted stress due to un-factored loads is 0.66Fy. Stress range is defined as the
magnitude of the change in stress due to the application or removal of the service live load.
In the case of a stress reversal, the stress range shall be computed as the numerical sum of
maximum repeated tensile and compressive stresses or the numerical sum of maximum
shearing stresses of opposite direction at the point of probable crack initiation. In the case of
complete-joint-penetration butt welds, the maximum design stress range applies only to
welds with internal soundness meeting the acceptance requirements of Section 6.12.2 or
6.13.2 of AWS D1.1. No evaluation of fatigue resistance is required if the live load stress
range is less than the threshold stress range, FTH. No evaluation of fatigue resistance is
required if the number of cycles of application of live load is less than 20,000.The cyclic
load resistance determined by the provisions of Appendix 3 of AISC specification, 2005 is
applicable to structures with suitable corrosion protection or subject only to mildly corrosive
atmospheres, such as normal atmospheric conditions. The cyclic load resistance determined
by the provisions of Appendix 3 of AISC specification, 2005 is applicable only to structures
subject to temperatures not exceeding 300F(150C). The engineer of record shall
provide
either complete details including weld sizes or shall specify the planned cycle life and the
maximum range of moments, shears and reactions for the connections.

Ponding of Water on Roof

When members of a flat roof system deflect, a bowl-shaped volume is created which is
capable
of retaining water. As water begins to accumulate, deflection increases to provide an
increased volumetric capacity. This cyclical process continues until either (i) the succeeding
deflection increments become smaller and equilibrium is reached; or (ii) succeeding
deflection increments are increasing, the system becomes unstable, and collapse occurs. This
retention of water which results solely from the deflection of flat roof framing is what is
referred to as ponding. From a serviceability standpoint, this ponding of water is a major
reason for splitting of roof membranes, resulting in costly replacement of both the membrane
and the insulation (Salmon and Johnson 1995).

To prevent ponding of water accumulated on flat roofs, the 1963 AISC Specification required
supporting members to satisfy the limitation, L/d600/fb. Where, fb is the computed service
load bending stress in ksi, L is length of beam and d is depth of beam. Using this equation,
it
would correspond roughly to a deflection limitation, L/240 on a simply supported
span. Avoidance of ponding is much more complex than indicated by the above limitation.

Long Term Deflection

In very tall concrete buildings, the cumulative vertical movements due to creep and
shrinkage may be sufficiently large to cause distress in nonstructural elements, and to induce
significant structural actions in the horizontal elements, especially in the upper region of the
building. The differential movements due to creep and shrinkage must be considered
structurally and accommodated as far as possible in the architectural details at the design
stage. In buildings with partially or fully exposed exterior columns, significant temperature
differences may occur between exterior and interior columns, and any restraint to their
relative deformations will induce stresses in the members concerned (Smith and Coull 1991).

2.9 Seismic Performance of Steel Structure

Seismic performance of steel structure depends on proper seismic detailing of joints,

members, welding etc.

Seismic Welding Issues

In high-seismic applications, the requirements in the building code differ from other loading
conditions in that it is assumed that portions of the buildings seismic load resisting system
(SLRS) will undergo controlled inelastic response when subjected to major seismic events.
Welds and welded connections that are part of the SLRS connect members that are subject to
yield-level stresses and plastic deformations during such events. In order to resist the
imposed loads, welded connections must be designed, detailed, fabricated, and inspected to
more rigorous standards than are required for statically loaded buildings. The weld metal
property requirements are also different (Miller 2006).

High-seismic framing systems generally have the highest demands concentrated at the ends
of beams and braces, right near the point of the connections. Thus, connections are often in
or near the most severely stressed portions of a structure. Inelastic deformations are not
typically expected to be concentrated in the welds themselves, but welds are often near the
base metal in which such strains are located. In order for the expected inelastic deformations
to occur, the welded connections must be strong enough to resist the applied stresses without
fracture, and the base metal must be capable of deforming to accommodate the straining
(Miller 2006).

The welded connections in high-seismic applications must be strong, ductile, and fracture
resistant. Strength and ductility are primarily addressed through the selection of the welding
filler metals and control of the procedures used to deposit the metal. Such criteria are not
significantly different than the requirements for low-seismic applications. In high seismic
applications, because of the potential consequences of connection fracture, as well as the
demands placed on the connections, the welded connections are treated differently with
respect to fracture resistance. Three factors determine the ability of a connection to resist
brittle fracture: the applied stresses; the presence (or lack) of cracks, notches, and other stress
concentrations; and the fracture toughness of the material. The applied stresses in the
connection are inherently linked to the configuration of the connection. In general terms, two
approaches have been used in seismic design to reduce the applied stresses in the connection:
the connection can be strengthened (by the use of reinforcing ribs, gussets, cover plates,
etc.), or the demand on the connection can be reduced (such as through the use of reduced
beam sections, often called dog bones). These factors are not directly weld related
but
have a direct effect on the localized stresses in the weld and ductility demands on the weld
(Miller 2006).

The other two factors (stress concentrations and material fracture toughness) are specifically
welding related. The first variable consists of two different issues: cracks and stress
concentrations. For connection fracture resistance, welds and heat-affected zones must be
free of cracks and crack like discontinuities; that is, planar and near-planar flaws. To avoid
cracks, specifications like the AWS D1.8 Structural Welding CodeSeismic Supplement
emphasize hydrogen control. The AISC Seismic Provisions call for specific post welding
nondestructive testing (NDT) to detect any cracking that might have occurred during or after
welding. Lamellar tearing can be similarly detected. Incomplete fusion, some slag inclusions,
and planar discontinuities, may have a crack-like effect on fracture resistance. Good welding
procedures and welder workmanship limit the production of such discontinuities, and
effective NDT is used to detect remaining planar flaws (Miller 2006).

Stress concentrations occur in a variety of forms, including notches and gouges from flame
cutting, weld toes, left in-place weld tabs, and weld discontinuities such as undercut, under
fill, and porosity. These stress concentrations are generally not planar, but volumetric and, as
such, are typically less severe than cracks. However, depending on the exact geometry of the
discontinuity, the local stress levels, and the orientation of the stress concentration to the
stress field, the effect can range from inconsequential to severe. The AISC Seismic
Provisions and the AISC Prequalified Connection Standard, as well as AWS D1.8, prescribe
limits for such stress concentrations in the connections of structures subject to seismic
loading. Steel backing left in-place in T-joints of moment connections can create a crack-like
planar discontinuity that constitutes a major stress concentration.

AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings

The AISC Seismic Provisions were developed to augment the AISC Specification, adding
provisions deemed necessary for high-seismic applications, which require capability to
dissipate energy through controlled inelastic deformations in major seismic events. Members
and connections in the seismic load resisting system (SLRS), including the welds that join
various members, are subject to the special requirements contained in the AISC Seismic
Provisions. The AISC Seismic Provisions contain a variety of welding-related requirements.

AWS D1.8 Structural Welding CodeSeismic Supplement

AWS D1.8 contains the additional provisions intended to be applied to joints or members
that are designed to resist yield level stresses or strains during design earthquakes. Just as the
AISC Seismic Provisions augment the AISC Specification, so AWS D1.8 supplements AWS
D1.1. When AWS D1.8 is specified, all the provisions of AWS D1.1 still apply, unless
modified or superseded by AWS D1.8. In AWS D1.8, it is assumed that the structure has
been designed in accordance with the AISC Seismic Provisions.

Performance of Moment End-Plate Connections for Seismic

Loading

Cyclic loading of moment end-plate connections was first studied by Popov and Tsai (1989).
Since that time a number of studies have been conducted worldwide. Two studies that used
design procedures are Meng and Murray (1997) and Sumner, et al. (2000). Meng and
Murray (1997) conducted a series of tests using the four-bolt extended, un-stiffened
connection. The connections were designed using the yield-line and modified Kennedy
procedures that include prying force effects in the bolt design. The test specimens were
designed such that the connection was stronger than the connected beam. Each specimen
was subjected to the Applied Technology Council (ATC-24) protocol loading (ATC 1992).
Even though bolt forces decreased from the fully tightened level (in some tests, even to
zero) as the testing progressed, failure occurred in the beam for every test. If weld access
holes were not used, robust hysteresis loops were obtained. In all the specimens tested with
weld access holes, flange fracture at the weld access hole occurred a few cycles into the
inelastic regime of the ATC-24 protocol. Subsequent finite element analysis showed that the
presence of a weld access hole significantly increases flange strain adjacent to the hole.
Meng and Murray recommended that weld access holes not be used in moment end-plate
connections.

As part of the SAC Joint Venture, Sumner, et al. (2000) conducted beam-to-column
tests using the SAC Protocol (1997). Their test matrix included the four-bolt extended, un-
stiffened end-plate connection. For each end-plate geometry, two tests were performed: one
with the connection design to develop 110 percent of the nominal plastic moment strength of
the beam (strong plate connection) the other with the connection designed to develop 80
percent of the plastic moment strength of the beam (weak plate connection). It was found
that the four-bolt extended, un-stiffened end-plate connection can be designed and detailed
to be suitable for seismic loading. A design procedure, very similar to the procedure
contained in AISC Design Guide 16, was then developed. The procedure is found in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Recommended Seismic Design Criteria
for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings (2000).
2.10 Estimating and Costing

Estimating and costing is done by using schedule of item rate prepared by using standard
procedure and present market rate of material, labor and other related matters. For RC
structural works and other civil and sanitary works, schedule of rate for different items is
prepared using present market rate of material, labor and other related matters following
PWD item rate analysis procedure. For steel structural works, schedule of rate for different
items of steel structure is prepared by analyzing item rates as per present market rate of
material, labor and other related matters following guide lines of PWD rate analysis
procedure and present practice of different steel structure fabrication company in
Bangladesh.

2.11 Materials and Specifications for steel structure

In designing steel and composite structural members, hot-rolled and built-up sections are
used. In the shop, using steel plates of different thickness and strength, different sizes of I-
sections may be fabricated by cutting and wielding of steel plates as per design requirements.
Different sizes of hot-rolled I-sections of different strength are available and may be selected
as per design requirements. There are steel plates of different thickness, strength and
properties. Also different types of fastener materials i.e. nut bolts, stud anchors, anchor bolts,
corrugated steel decking sheets of different strength and properties are available. For joining
plates in the shop and field, different wielding process and electrodes of different strength
and properties are used. All the materials usually used for fabrication and erection of steel
structural members are discussed in brief with necessary specifications.

2.11.1 Structural Steel

Different types of structural steels such as carbon steel, high-strength low-alloy steel, alloy
steel etc. are widely used for steel structure as described below in brief with properties.

Carbon Steel

Carbon steels are divided into four categories based on the percentage of carbon: low carbon
(less than 0.15%); mild carbon (0.15-0.29%); medium carbon (0.3-0.59%); and high carbon
(0.60-1.70%). Structural carbon steels are in the mild carbon category; a steel such as A36
has maximum carbon varying from 0.25 to 0.29% depending on thickness. Structural carbon
steels exhibit definite yield points. Increased carbon percent raises the yield stress but
reduces ductility, making welding more difficult.

High-Strength Low-Alloy Steel

This category includes steels having yield stresses from 40 to 70 ksi, exhibiting well defined
yield point. The addition to carbon steels of small amounts of alloy elements such as
chromium, columbium, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, phosphorus, vanadium, or
zirconium, improves some of the mechanical properties. Where as carbon steel gain their
strength by increasing carbon content, the alloy elements create increased strength from a
fine rather than course microstructure obtained during cooling of the steel. High- strength
low-alloy steels are used in the as-rolled or normalized conditions; i.e., no heat treatment is
used. The high-strength low-alloy steels are A242, A441, A572, A588, A606, A607, A618,
and A709, Grades 50 and 50W.

Alloy Steels

Low-alloy steels may be quenched and tempered to obtain yield strengths of 80 to 110 ksi.
Yield strength is usually defined as the stress at 0.2% offset strain, since these steels do not
exhibit a well-defined yield point. These steels are weldable with proper procedures, and
ordinarily require no additional heat treatment after they have been welded.

Corrosion Resistance and Weathering Steel

Corrosion resistance may be improved by the addition of copper as an alloy element.

However copper-bearing carbon steel is too expensive for general use. High-strength low-
alloy steels have several times the corrosion resistance of structural carbon steel, with or
without the addition of copper. The high-strength low-alloy steels do not pit as severely as
carbon steels and the rust that forms becomes a protective coating to prevent further
deterioration. With certain alloy elements the high-strength low-alloy steel will develop an
oxide protective coating that is pleasing in appearance and is described as follows: It
is a
very dense corrosion actually a deeply colored brown, red, purpleIt has a texture
and color which cannot be reproduced artificiallya character only nature can give, as with
stone, marble, and granite. When steels are to be unpainted and left exposed they are
called
weathering steels. ASTM A588 is generally used for weathering steel in buildings and A709
Grades 50W and 100W for weathering steel in bridges. The extra expense resulting from
fabrication and erection is offset by the elimination of painting at intervals during the life of
structure.

Properties of Steel

Properties of common structural steel used in building and bridge construction is given in
Table 2.4 with strength, ASTM designation and use.

Table 2.4 Properties of steels used for buildings and bridges

ASTM Minimum Tensile Common use
designation yield stress, strength,
Fy (ksi) Fu (ksi)
A36 32 58-80 General structural purposes; bolted and
36 58-80 welded, mainly for buildings.
A572 Grade 42 42 60 Structural shapes, plates, sheet piling,
Grade 50 50 65 and bars for bolted and welded
Grade 60 60 75 building; welded bridges in Grades 42
Grade 65 65 80 and 50 only; essentially superseded by
A709, Grade 50

Fatigue Strength of Structural Steel

The AISC specifications prescribe no fatigue effect for fewer than 20000 cycles, which is
approximately two applications a day for 25 years. Since most loadings in buildings are in
that category, fatigue is generally not considered. The exceptions are crane-runway girders
and structures supporting machinery. Fatigue is always considered in the design of highway
bridges, which are expected to have in excess of 100,000 cycles of loading.
2.11.2 Welding

Welding is the process of connecting metal. Welding is widely used for structural steel plate
joining process.

Basic Process

Welding is the process of jointing materials (usually metal) by heating them to suitable
temperatures such that the materials coalesce into one material. There may or may not be
pressure, and there may or may not be fillet material applied. Arc wielding is the general
term for many process that use electrical energy in the form of an electric arc to generate the
heat necessary for wielding. Shielded Metal Arc Welding (SMAW) and submerged Arc
Welding (SAW) are widely used conventional welding process. Other conventional welding
processes are Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW), Flux Cored Arc Welding (FCAW),
Electrogas Welding (EGW), Electroslag Welding (ESW), Stud Welding etc.

Shielded metal arc welding is one of the oldest, simplest, and perhaps most versatile types
for welding structural steel. The SMAW process is often referred to as the manual stick
electrode process. Heating is accomplished by means of an electric arc between a coated
electrode and the materials being jointed. The coated electrode is consumed as the metal is
transferred from the electrode to the base material during the welding process. The electrode
wire becomes filler material and the coating is converted partly into a shielding gas, partly
into slag, and some part is absorbed by the weld metal. The transfer of metal from electrode
to the work being welded is induced by molecular attraction and surface tension, without
application of pressure. The shielding of the arc prevents atmospheric contamination of the
molten metal in the arc stream and in the arc pool. It prevents nitrogen and oxygen from
being picked up and forming nitrides and oxides which may cause embrittlement. The
electrode material is specified under various American Welding Society specifications. The
designation of electrode material such as E60XX or E70XX indicate 60 ksi and 70 ksi,
respectively, for tensile strength.

In the SAW process the arc is not visible because it is covered by a blanket of granular,
fusible material. The bare metal electrode is consumable in that it is deposited as filler
material. The end of the electrode is kept continuously shielded by the molten flux over
which is deposited a layer of unfused flux in its granular condition. The granular flux, which
is a special feature of this method, is usually laid automatically along the seam ahead of the
advancing electrode, and provides a cover that allows the weld to be made without spatter,
sparks, or smoke. This flux material protects the weld pool against the atmosphere, serves to
clean the weld metal, and modifies the chemical composition of the weld metal. Welds made
by the submerged arc process have uniform high quality; exhibiting good ductility, high
impact strength, high density, and good corrosion resistance. Mechanical properties of the
weld are consistently as good as the base material. The combinations of bare-rod electrodes
and granular flux are classified under AWS. They are designed FXXX-EXXX where the first
X following the F is the first digit of the tensile strength (i.e.,7 for 70 ksi).

Types of Welds

The weldability of a steel is a measure of the ease of producing a crack-free and sound
structural joint. Groove weld, fillet weld, plug weld and slot weld are common types of weld.

The principal use of groove welds is to connect structural members that are aligned in the
same plane. Since groove welds are usually intended to transmit the full load of the members
they join, the weld should have the same strength as the pieces joined. Such a groove weld is
known as a complete joint penetration groove weld. When joints are designed so that groove
welds do not extend completely through the thickness of the pieces being joined, such welds
are referred to as partial joint penetration groove welds.

Fillet welds owing to their overall economy, ease of fabrication, and adaptability are the
most widely used. They generally require less precision in the fitting up because of
the overlapping of pieces, whereas the groove weld requires careful alignment with
specified gap (root opening) between pieces. The fillet weld is particularly advantageous to
welding in
the field or in realigning members or connections that were fabricated within accepted
tolerances but which may not fit as accurately as desired. In addition, the edges of pieces
being joined seldom need special preparation such as beveling or squaring since the edge
conditions resulting from flame cutting or from shear cutting procedures are generally
adequate.

Slot and plug welds may be used exclusively in a connection, or they may be used in
combination with fillet welds. Principal use for plug or slot welds is to transmit shear in a lap
joint when the size of welds are also useful in preventing overlapping parts from buckling.
Minimum Size of Fillet Welds

Minimum size of fillet welds is shown in Table 2.5. Though designed size of fillet weld
may be smaller, the AISC Specifications 2005 specify minimum size of fillet weld which
must be followed during welding design.

Table 2.5 Minimum size of fillet welds

Material thickness of thinner part jointed, in.(mm) Minimum size of fillet weld,[a] in. (mm)
To 1/4 (6) inclusive 1/8 (3)
Over 1/4 (6) to 1/2 (13) 3/16 (5)
Over 1/2 (13) to 3/4 (19) 1/4 (6)
Over 3/4 (19) 5/16 (8)
[a] Leg dimension of fillet welds. Single pass welds must be used.

Maximum Fillet Weld Size along Edges

Maximum fillet weld size along edges to be designed according to the requirements given
below.
Along edges of material less than inch (6.4mm) thick, the maximum size is equal
to the thickness of the material.
Along edges of material inch (6.4 mm) or more in thickness, the maximum size
shall be 1/16 inch (1.6 mm) less than the thickness of the material, unless the weld is
especially designated on the drawings to be built out to obtain full throat thickness.

Effective Areas of Fillet Welds

Assuming the fillet to have equal legs of nominal size a, the effective throat te is 0.707a. The
effective throat dimensions for fillet welds made by the submerged arc (SAW) process as
modified to account for the inherently superior quality of such welds,
For fillet welds the leg size equal to or less than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), the effective
throat dimension shall be taken as equal to the leg size a.
 For fillet welds larger than 3/8 inch (9.5 mm), the effective throat dimension shall be
taken as the theoretical throat dimension plus 0.11 inch (2.8 mm) i.e. 0.707a+0.11
for symmetric welds.

Load and Resistance Factor Design of Welds

Load and Resistance Factor Design of Welds as per 1993 AISC Specification for Steel
Buildings is described here in brief.

For groove welds, the design strength per unit length of complete penetration groove welds
depends on the type of stress that is applied.
Tension and compression normal to effective area, and tension and compression
parallel to axis of weld: Rnw=0.9teFy for base material...(2.1)
Rnw=0.9teFyw for weld metal...(2.2)
Shear on effective area:
Rnw=0.9te(0.6Fy ) for base metal...(2.3)
Rnw=0.8te(0.6FEXX ) for weld metal..(2.4)

For fillet welds, the design strength per unit length of a fillet is based on the shear resistance
through the throat of the weld, as follows.
Rnw=0.75te(0.6FEXX ) for fillet weld..(2.5)
But not greater than the shear rupture strength of the adjacent base metal.
Rnw=0.75t(0.6Fu ) for base metal (2.6)
Where, te = effective throat dimension.
t = thickness of base material along which weld is placed.
Fu = tensile strength of base metal.
FEXX = tensile strength of electrode material.
Rnw = the nominal strength per unit length of weld, but not to exceed the nominal
strength per unit length of adjacent base material.
= strength reduction factor. Fy=
yield strength of base metal. Fyw =
yield strength of weld metal.
2.11.3 Structural Fasteners

Every structure is an assemblage of individual parts or members that must be fastened

together, usually at the member ends. Welding is one method and already discussed. The
other method is to use fastener, such as rivets or bolts. Here only high strength bolt is
discussed. High strength bolts have replaced rivets.

2.11.3.1 High-Strength Bolts

The two basic types of high-strength bolts are designated as ASTM A325 and A490. These
bolts are heavy hexagon-head bolts, used with heavy semi-finished hexagon nuts. A325 bolts
are of heat-treated medium carbon steel having an approximate yield strength of 81 to 92 ksi
depending on diameter. A490 bolts are also heat-treated but are of alloy steel having an
approximate yield strength of 115 to 130 ksi depending on diameter. A449 bolts are

occasionally used when diameters over inch up to 3 inch are needed, and also for anchor

bolts and threaded rods. High strength bolts range in diameter from to inch (3 inch for

A449). The most common diameters used in building construction are inch and inch,

whereas the most common sizes in bridge design are inch and 1 inch.

High strength bolts are usually tightened to develop a specified tensile stress in them, which
results in a predictable clamping force on the joint. The actual transfer of service loads
through a joint is, therefore, due to the friction developed in the pieces being joined. Joints
containing high-strength bolts are designed either as slip-critical (formally called friction-
type), where high slip resistance at service load is desired; or as bearing-type, where high
slip resistance at service load is unnecessary. Tensile strength of the bolt material is 120 ksi
for A325 bolts and 150 ksi for A490 bolts.

2.11.3.2 Load and Resistance Factor Design of Fasteners

Load and Resistance Factor Design of Fasteners as per 1993 AISC Specification for Steel
Buildings is described here in brief.
Design Shear Strength (No Threads in Shear Plane)

Design shear strength, Rn=0.75(0.5 )mAb.(2.7)

Where, = 0.75, the standard value for shear.
Rn= the nominal strength.
= tensile strength of the bolt material (120 ksi for A325 bolts; 150 ksi for A490
bolts).
m = the number of shear planes participating (usually 1 for single shear or 2 for
double shear).
Ab= gross cross-sectional area across the unthreaded shank of the bolt.

Design Shear Strength (Threads in Shear Plane)

Design shear strength, Rn=0.75(0.4 )mAb.(2.8)

Design Tension Strength

Design tension strength, Rn=0.75(0.75 )Ab...(2.9)

Design Bearing Strength

(i) Usual conditions based on the deformation limit state. This applies for all holes except
long-slotted holes perpendicular to the line of force, where end distance Le is at least 1.5
times the bolt diameter d, the center-to-center spacing s is at least 3d, and there are two or
more bolts in the line of force.
Design bearing strength, Rn= (2.4dtFu).(2.10)
Where, = 0.75
d= nominal diameter of bolt at unthreaded area.
t = thickness of part against which bolt bears.
Fu= tensile strength of connected part against which bolt bears.
Le = distance along line of force from the edge of the connected part to the center of
a standard hole or the center of a short and long-slotted hole perpendicular to the
line of force.
Rn= the nominal strength.
(ii) Deformation limit state for long-slotted holes perpendicular to the line of force, where
end distance Le is at least 1.5 times the bolt diameter d, the center-to-center spacing s is at
least 3d, and there are two or more bolts in the line of force.
Design bearing strength, Rn= (2dtFu)...(2.11)
Where, = 0.75

(iii) Strength limit state for the bolt nearest the edge:
Design bearing strength, Rn= LetFu...........(2.12)
Where, = 0.75

(iv) Strength limit state when hole elongation exceeding 0.25 inch and hole ovalization
can
be tolerated:
Design bearing strength, Rn= (3dtFu)(2.13)
Where, = 0.75

Minimum Spacing of Bolts in Line of Transmitted Force

Minimum spacing P/(Fut) + d/2 ..

(2.14) Where, = 0.75
P= factored load acting on one bolt.
t = thickness of plate material.
Fu= tensile strength of plate material.
d = diameter of the bolt.
The minimum spacing of bolts in a line is preferably 3 bolt diameters and shall not be less

than 2 diameters.

Minimum End Distance in Direction of Transmitted Force

Minimum end distances must be at least 1.5 diameters. When higher bearing strengths are
used then the minimum end distance , as follows, Le P/(Fut)(2.15)
Where, = 0.75
P= factored load per bolt.
t = thickness of plate material.
 Fu= tensile strength of the plate material.

Maximum Edge Distance

The maximum distance from the center of a bolt to the nearest edge is 12t, where t is the
thickness of the connected part, and this edge distance may not exceed 6 inch. The purpose
of this requirement is to prevent corrosion resulting from moisture entering the joint. The
two contact surfaces of a joint may not be perfectly flat, and the clamping action will be
lower when the bolts are far apart (or far from an edge).

Maximum Spacing of Connector

The maximum longitudinal spacing of connectors between elements in continuous contact

when the elements consist of a plate and a shape or two plates, is given by,
(i) For painted members or unpainted members not subject to corrosion,
S24t12 inch.
(ii) For unpainted members of weathering steel subject to atmospheric corrosion,
S14t7 inch.
Where t is the thickness of the thinner element.

Design of Slip Critical Connections

The design of slip-critical connections requires full consideration of the strength limit states.
The strength of the fastener in shear, bearing, and direct tension must be investigated.
Sufficient strength must be provided to resist factored loads. In addition, the service load that
must be transferred by friction without slip must not exceed maximum acceptable value.
Design slip resistance Rslr=1.13Tim.(2.16)
Where, Rslr = nominal slip resistance per bolt at factored loads.
m = number of slip (shear) planes.
Ti = minimum fastener initial tension.
= mean slip coefficient, as applicable, or as established by test.
= 0.33 for class A surface condition.
=0.50 for class B surface condition.
=0.40 for class C surface condition.
P= factored load per bolt.
 t = thickness of plate material.
Fu= tensile strength of the plate material.
= 1.0 for standard holes.
=0.85 for oversize and short-slotted holes.
=0.70 for long-slotted holes transverse to load.
=0.60 for long-slotted holes parallel to load.

2.11.4 Anchor Rod

The preferred specification for anchor rods is ASTM F1554, with Grade 36 being the most
common strength level used. The availability of other grades should be confirmed prior to
specification. ASTM F1554 Grade 55 anchor rods are used when there are large tension
forces due to moment connections or uplift from overturning. ASTM F1554 Grade 105 is a
special high strength rod grade and generally should be used only when it is not possible to
develop the required strength using larger Grade 36 or Grade 55 rods. Unless otherwise
specified, anchor rods will be supplied with unified coarse (UNC) threads with a Class 2a
tolerance, as permitted in ASTM F1554. While ASTM F1554 permits standard hex nuts, all
nuts for anchor rods, especially those used in base plates with large oversize holes, should be
furnished as heavy hex nuts, preferably ASTM A563 Grade A or DH for Grade 105. ASTM
F1554 anchor rods are required to be color coded to allow easy identification in the field.
The color codes are as follows: Grade 36-Blue, Grade 55-Yellow, Grade 105-Red. In
practice, Grade 36 is considered the default grade and often is not color coded. Table 2.6
shows tensile strength of different ASTM designated anchor rod materials.

Table 2.6 Anchor rod materials

Materials F1554 A36 A307 A354 Gr BD
ASTM Gr36 Gr55 Gr105 A449
Tensile 58 75 125 120 105 90 58 58 150 140
strength, Fu
(ksi)

The ASTM specification allows F1554 anchor rods to be supplied either straight (threaded
with nut for anchorage), bent or headed. Rods up to approximately 1 in. in diameter are
sometimes supplied with heads hot forged similar to a structural bolt. Thereafter, it is more
common that the rods will be threaded and nutted. Hooked type anchor rods have been
extensively used in the past. However, hooked rods have a very limited pullout strength
compared with that of headed rods or threaded rods with a nut for anchorage. Therefore,
current recommended practice is to use headed rods or threaded rods with a nut for
anchorage.

The addition of plate washers or other similar devices does not increase the pullout strength
of the anchor rod and can create construction problems by interfering with reinforcing steel
placement or concrete consolidation under the plate. Thus, it is recommended that the
anchorage device be limited to either a heavy hex nut or a head on the rod. As an exception,
the addition of plate washers may be of use when high-strength anchor rods are used or when
concrete blow out could occur. In these cases, calculations should be made to determine if an
increase in the bearing area is necessary. Additionally, it should be confirmed that the plate
size specified will work with the reinforcing steel and concrete placement requirements.
ASTM F1554 Grade 55 anchor rods can be ordered with a supplementary requirement,
which limits the carbon equivalent content to a maximum of 45%, to provide weldability
when needed. Adding this supplement is helpful should welding become required for fixes in
the field. Grade36 is typically weldable without supplement (Fisher and Kloiber 2006).

There are also two supplemental provisions available for Grades 55 and 105 regarding
Charpy V-Notch (CVN) toughness. These provide for CVN testing of 15 ft-lbs at either 40
F or at -20 F. Note, however, that anchor rods typically have sufficient fracture toughness
without these supplemental specifications. Additional fracture toughness is expensive and
generally does not make much difference in the time to failure for anchor rods subjected to
fatigue loading. Although fracture toughness may correspond to a greater crack length at the
time of failure (because cracks grow at an exponential rate) 95% of the fatigue life of the
anchor rod is consumed when the crack size is less than a few millimeters. This is also the
reason it is not cost effective to perform ultrasonic testing or other nondestructive tests on
anchor rods to look for fatigue cracks. There is only a small window between the time cracks
are large enough to detect and small enough to not cause fracture. Thus, it generally is more
cost effective to design additional redundancy into the anchor rods rather than specifying
supplemental CVN properties.

Galvanized anchor rods are often used when the column base-plate assembly is exposed and
subject to corrosion. Either the hot-dip galvanizing process (ASTM 153) or the mechanical
galvanizing process (ASTM B695) is allowed in ASTM F1554; however, all threaded
components of the fastener assembly must be galvanized by the same process. Mixing of
rods galvanized by one process and nuts by another may result in an unworkable assembly. It
is recommended that galvanized anchor rods and nuts be purchased from the same supplier
and shipped preassembled. Because this is not an ASTM requirement, this should be
specified on the contract documents. Note also that galvanizing increases friction between
the nut and the rod and even though the nuts are over tapped, special lubrication may be
required. ASTM A449, A36 and A307 specifications are listed in Table for comparison
purposes, because some suppliers are more familiar with these specifications. Note that
ASTM F1554 grades match up closely with many aspects of these older material
specifications. Note also that these older material specifications contain almost none of the
anchor rod specific requirements found in ASTM F1554.

2.11.5 Shear Connector

The horizontal shear that develops between the concrete and the steel beam during loading
must be resisted so that the slip will be restrained. A fully composite section will have no
slip at the concrete-steel interface. Although some bond may develop between the steel and
concrete, it is not sufficiently predictable to provide the required interface shear strength.
Neither can friction between the concrete slab and the steel beam develop such strength.
Instead, mechanical shear connectors are required, except for the totally concrete-encased
steel beam. The only connectors specifically provided for in the AISC specifications are stud
connectors and channel connectors. Currently, nearly all shear connectors are headed studs.
Ideally, to obtain a fully composite section, the shear connectors should be stiff enough to
provide the complete interaction (i.e., no slip at the interface). Nominal strength of stud shear
connector is given in Table 2.7.

Specifications of stud shear connectors are given below as per AISC LRFD 2010. These
specifications are used for design.
ASTM A108 stud anchors tensile strength, Fu=65 ksi.
Use steel headed stud anchors inch or less in diameter.
Concrete strength to be, 3ksi 10 ksi.
fc
Steel headed stud anchors, after installation, shall extend not less than 1.5 inch
above the top of the steel deck.
Minimum stud anchor length to be equal to (rib height+1.5").
Minimum length of stud anchors = 4dsa where, dsa= stud anchor diameter.
 There shall be at least inch of specified concrete cover above the top of the
headed stud anchor.
Burn off length of stud anchor may be used 3/8".
Steel headed stud anchor diameter to be smaller than or equal to 2.5 times flange
thickness of beam.
Slab thickness above steel deck must be 2 inch.
Maximum spacing of stud anchor=8ts,eff.
Minimum spacing of stud anchor=6dsa.
Minimum transverse spacing between anchor pairs=4dsa.
Minimum distance of anchor to slab free edge along shear force=8 inch.

Table 2.7 Nominal strength Qn (ksi) for stud shear connector

Connector Concrete strength fc (ksi)
3 3.5 4
dia. x 2 headed stud 9.4 10.5 11.6

5/8 dia. x 2.5 headed stud 14.6 16.4 18.1

3/4 dia. x 3 headed stud 21 23.6 26.1

7/8 dia. x 3.5 headed stud 28.6 32.1 35.5

2.11.6 Formed Steel Deck

Floor and roof slabs incorporating cold-formed steel deck panels, which serve both as form
and reinforcement for the concrete placed over them, are widely used in buildings where the
main framing is either of steel or composite construction. There are many manufacturers of
the steel deck used for composite slabs. Most have developed their own cross-section shapes
and details. The steel sheet from which the panels are made ranges in thickness from about
0.024 to 0.060 inch. Such composite slabs have a number of advantages.

(i) The steel deck, easily and quickly laid on the steel floor beams, serves as a working
platform to support construction activity and to carry the freshly poured concrete. This
eliminates the need for temporary false work and forms.
(ii) The steel deck, with proper attention to details, can serve as the main tensile
reinforcement for the slab.
(iii) If parts or all of the deck panels are formed into closed cells, these cells can serve as
ducts for electric and communication cables, or for heating and air conditioning ducts.

Specifications of formed steel deck are given below as per AISC LRFD 2010. These
specifications are used for design.
Rib height of steel deck must not be greater than 3 inch.
Rib width of steel decking must be greater than or equal to 2 inch.
Steel deck shall be anchored to all supporting members at a spacing not to exceed
18 inch.

2.11.7 Hot-Rolled, Built-Up and Cold-Formed Sections

The common hot-rolled shapes are the angle, the tube, the channel, and the I. The I is
available in two classifications. The most widely used is W shape. The other, once called the
American Standard Beam, is called the S shapes. Miscellaneous column and beam shapes
used for lightweight construction are rolled by a few mills. Rolled section properties which
are to be used in structural design calculations are presented in the AISC Manuals. Structural
shapes are identified by a letter designator which indicates the particular cross section.
Typical indicators are:
W =Wide flange beam.
M =Miscellaneous beam.
S =American standard beam.

The letter designators are followed by numbers which identify the particular section, for
example, W18 50. The first numeral indicates the depth of the section and the second its
weight in pounds per foot.

Wide-flange shapes can be produced by passing an assembly of two flange plates and a web
plate through sub-merged arc welding machines which simultaneously weld both flanges to
one side of the web. The section is turned over to weld the flanges to the other side.

Cold-formed steel shapes are formed in rolls or brakes from sheet or strip steel. Because of
the great variety which can be produced, shapes of this type, unlike hot-rolled shapes, have
not been standardized. Although a number of fabricators have developed their lines of
members, the designer may device special shapes for particular jobs. While shapes up to
thickness of and even inch can be formed, cold-formed steel construction is usually
restricted to thickness ranging from 0.012 inch to 0.224 inch.

2.11.8 Theory of Design of Steel Structure

Different components of steel structure such as column, beam, plate girder, hybrid girder,
composite beam, composite girder etc. may be designed as per AISC Specifications. Steel
structural members may be designed as non-composite or composite using LRFD method as
per AISC Specification 2010. Welding, connections, anchor bolts, base plates, nut-bolts, stud
anchors etc. may also be designed as per AISC Specification 2010. The design steps and
procedures of different steel and composite structural members, base plate with anchor bolts,
end plate rigid connection, simple shear connection, continuous connections etc. are stated in
Appendix-A in brief.

2.12 Concluding Remarks

To perform the intended research work, design of RC and steel framed six storied building
with four types of floor system is required. The structural form, floor system, load
considerations, load combinations, serviceability criteria, foundation system, connection
system, materials and specifications, seismic performance, estimating and costing procedure
discussed in this chapter directly or indirectly helped the research work. This chapter will be
helpful in making a full understanding in brief about different considerations of multistory
building design.
 Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The primary objective of this chapter is to perform analysis and design of a six storied
industrial building as RC and steel structure with various floor systems. Finally, comparison
of construction cost and structural behavior of the building structures are required to evaluate
better structural system.

To achieve this objective, complete architectural design of a six story garments factory
building has been prepared regarding the present and future context of Bangladesh.
Following the architectural plan, RC structural systems with beam-slab and flat plate floor
have been formed. Again following same plan, steel structural systems with non-composite
and composite floor have been formed. Then structural modeling and analysis have been
performed by STADD.Pro for the selected four types of structural system. Loads are
assigned as per BNBC 1993. From analytical results, RC structural members are designed
following ACI Building Code 2008. Steel structural members, joints etc. are designed as
non-composite and composite following AISC LRFD Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings 2010. Complete construction cost including foundation has been prepared for all
the four types of structural system. Other information, related to structural behavior, is
obtained.

Here, illustration of architectural planning, formation of structural systems, load calculations,

structural modeling, analysis, design, estimating, costing and observation of structural
behavior (lateral drift, top deflection, vertical deflection, base shear etc.) have been
performed for the intended research program.

3.2 Architectural Design

Complete architectural design of a six storied industrial building is prepared as shown in

Figure 3.1. The typical floor plan of this building is functionally solved as per present
demand and future trend of export oriented garments industry in Bangladesh. The typical
floors comprise of 6 nos. stair cases, 4 nos. lift cores, 4 nos. female toilet blocks, 4 nos. male
toilet blocks, 2 nos. lobbies, 4 nos. office block, 4 nos. warehouse block and a central large
production area. The exterior and interior walls are 125 mm thick brick wall. Lift core walls
are 250 mm thick brick/RC wall. Sufficient windows, doors and collapsible gates are shown.
4 nos. over head water tanks are considered with total capacity of 182000 liters. Roof top
stair blocks and lift machine rooms are considered.

The length of the building is 92 meter and width is 56.45 meter. Total area per floor is 4747
square meter. Typical floor height is 3.35 meter. In the prepared architectural plan, column
spacing is mainly 7.62 meter at both directions. At staircases, the column spacing is 5 meter
in one direction. Within lift cores, different column spacing is used to accommodate with the
functional plan.

3.3 Structural Form with Floor System

Following architectural design of the building, RC structural system is formed with beam-
slab and flat plate floor. Again for the same building, steel structural system is formed with
non-composite and composite floor.

3.3.1 RC Structural Forms with Floor Systems

Following the architectural plan of the six storied building, RC structural system is formed
with beam supported slab and flat plate floor as shown in Figure 3.2.

Structural system is considered as intermediate moment resisting rigid frame with shear
walls at lift cores as shown in Figure 3.3. Floor slab is assumed as rigid in plane which acts
as diaphragm to transfer lateral load horizontally to shear walls. All columns are
interconnected by grade beams at finished ground level shown in Figure 3.4. Foundations are
initially assumed as shallow foundation.
Figure 3.1 Typical architectural plan of the selected building
 (a) RC beam-slab floor system

(b) RC flat plate floor system

Figure 3.2 Floor systems for RC structure

Figure 3.3 Rigid frame for RC structure

Figure 3.4 Grade beam layout for RC and steel structure

(a) Without steel deck

(b) With steel deck

Figure 3.5 Steel beam topping RC slab
3.3.2 Steel Structural Forms with Floor Systems

According to same architectural plan of Figure 3.1, steel structural system is formed with
non-composite floor (NCF) and composite floor (CF). In case of steel structure with CF, RC
slab with or without steel deck is connected to supporting steel girder and beam by sufficient
shear connectors. Shear connectors make the beam composite by resisting the horizontal
shear which develops during bending. But for steel structure with NCF, minimum numbers
of shear connectors are used and composite action is neglected. For both NCF and CF
systems, columns are same i.e. steel I-sections are used.

For sub-structure, initially shallow foundations are considered with RC pedestals which are
interconnected by grade beams at finished ground level. Super structure columns, floor
beams, girders etc. are built-up steel I-sections. RC slab with or without cold formed steel
deck is supported on steel framed floor system. This RC floor slab is connected with
supporting steel beams or girders with the help of mechanical shear connectors as shown in
Figure 3.5.

Structural form is taken as eccentrically braced semi-rigid steel frame as shown in Figure
3.7. The floor system is taken as one way RC slab supported on two way steel beam system
with or without steel deck as shown in Figure 3.6. Floor slab is assumed as rigid in plane and
acts as diaphragm to transfer lateral load horizontally to braced panel. Connections of girders
with columns and connections of secondary beams with girders are considered as partially
restrained (semi-rigid) connection with appropriate ductility. Bracing ends are pin joints.
Column joints are fully restrained. Girders and beams are capable to reach plastic strength
collapse mechanism where plastic hinge rotation is necessary. Semi-rigid connections
require a dependable and known moment capacity.
 Figure 3.6 Floor system of steel framing

Figure 3.7 Sami-rigid frames with and without bracing for steel structure
3.4 Design Loads

Both gravity loads (dead load and live load) and lateral loads (wind load and earthquake
load) are considered to design the selected building for four types of structural system.
Design loads are considered and calculated following BNBC 1993 and given in details in
Appendix B.

3.5 Structural Modeling and Analysis

This section deals with structural modeling, assigning member properties, assigning basic
loads, generation of load combinations and structural analysis of the selected four types of
structure for the intended research work.

3.5.1 Generation of Model

Following architectural design and selected four types of structural system from section 3.2
and 3.3; three dimensional structural models are generated as RC beam-slab, RC flat plate,
steel NCF and steel CF system by STAAD.Pro.

Model for steel (NCF and CF) structure comprises of RC pedestal and grade beam for sub-
structure with fixed support. Super structure comprises of steel column, girder and secondary
beam with proper orientation. Diagonal bracings are generated for lateral load resisting
system. Stair case, lift core, water tank, lift machine room etc. are also generated as realistic
as possible. RC slab on steel deck, connected with steel girder and beam by stud anchor, is
generated with appropriate properties. Structural form is generated as moment resisting
semi-rigid frame with eccentric braced panel as shown in Figure 3.8. Connections of girders
with columns and connections of secondary beams with girders are assigned as partially
restrained (semi-rigid). Bracing ends are hinge joint. Column joints are fully restrained.
Girders and beams are capable to reach plastic strength collapse mechanism where plastic
hinge rotation is necessary. Under-ground lift core is generated by surface elements.
 (a) 3D model of steel structure (NCF system)

(b) 3D model of steel structure (CF system)

Figure 3.8 STAAD.Pro models for steel structures

Model for RC structure with beam-slab floor system comprises of column, grade beam, floor
beam, lift core shear wall, stair case, water tank, lift machine room etc. with fixed support
and rigid connections. Model for RC structure with flat plate floor system comprises of
column, grade beam, flat plate, edge beam, lift core shear wall, stair case, water tank, lift
machine room etc. with fixed support and rigid connections. Flat plate is generated by plate
elements. Structural form is generated as moment resisting rigid frame with shear walls as
shown in Figure 3.9.
 (a) 3D model of RC beam-slab system

3D model

Rendered 3D model
(b) 3D model of RC flat plate system

Figure 3.9 STAAD.Pro models for RC structures

3.5.2 Assigning Member Properties

Member properties are primarily assigned based on preliminary analysis and design for beam
elements, surface and plate elements shown in Figure 3.10. Finally member properties are
corrected as per final design and checked by STAAD.Pro whether the final design is correct
or not.

(a) RC Beam and column element (b) Plate element (c) Surface element

(d) Steel bracing-panel (e) RC lift core shear wall (f) Steel column and beam element

Figure 3.10 Some elements from STAAD.Pro models

3.5.3 Assigning Basic Loads

Following calculated loads from Appendix B, both gravity loads and lateral loads are
assigned in all the four models generated above. Two types of basic wind load is first
generated as type-1 and type-2 by taking design wind pressure at different height calculated
in section B.1.2.1. Type-1 wind load is perpendicular to length and type-2 wind load is
perpendicular to width of building. Intensity of type-1 is greater than type-2. Wind loads are
generated as surface load. Earthquake loads are generated as nodal loads taking the
calculated point loads at different heights in section B.1.2.2 for earthquake load
considerations. Nodal loads are assigned at column beam connections at story level. Live
loads and dead loads are assigned according to available data of section B.1.1. Basic loads
assigned are listed below. Some basic loads assigned in STAAD.Pro models are shown in
Figure 3.11.

1. D=dead loads
2. L=live loads
3. WX+ = wind loads towards X direction (along building length).
4. WX- = wind loads opposite to X direction.
5. WZ+ = wind loads towards Z direction (along building width).
6. WZ- = wind loads opposite to Z direction.
7. EX+ = earthquake loads towards X direction.
8. EX- = earthquake loads opposite to X direction.
9. EZ+ = earthquake loads towards Z direction.
10. EZ- = earthquake loads opposite to Z direction.

(a) Wind load WX+

(b) Earthquake load EX+

 (c) Live load at typical floor (d) Dead load at typical floor

Figure 3.11 Some basic loads from STAAD.Pro models

3.5.4 Generation of Load Combinations

Load combinations are generated using assigned basic loads. BNBC 1993 is followed for
ASD load combinations of steel and RC structure. AISC LRFD Specification 1993 is
followed for LRFD load combinations of steel structure. ACI Building code 2008 is
followed for USD load combinations of RC structure. Generated load combinations are
given in Table 3.13.
 Table 3.1 Generated load combinations in STAAD.Pro models
For steel structure For RC structure For steel and RC structure
(LRFD method) (USD method) (ASD method)

1.4D 1.4D D
1.2D + 1.6L 1.2D + 1.6L D+L
1.2D+0.5L+1.3WX+ 1.2D+L+1.6WX+ 0.75(D+L+WX+)
1.2D+0.5L+1.3WX- 1.2D+L+1.6WX- 0.75(D+L+WX-)
1.2D+0.5L+1.3WZ+ 1.2D+L+1.6WZ+ 0.75(D+L+WZ+)
1.2D+0.5L+1.3WZ- 1.2D+L+1.6WZ- 0.75(D+L+WZ-)
1.2D+0.5L+EX+ 1.2D+L+EX+ 0.75(D+L+EX+)
1.2D+0.5L+EX- 1.2D+L+EX- 0.75(D+L+EX-)
1.2D+0.5L+EZ+ 1.2D+L+EZ+ 0.75(D+L+EZ+)
1.2D+0.5L+EZ- 1.2D+L+EZ- 0.75(D+L+EZ-)
0.9D+1.3WX+ 0.9D+1.6WX+ 0.75(D+WX+)
0.9D+1.3WX- 0.9D+1.6WX- 0.75(D+WX-)
0.9D+1.3WZ+ 0.9D+1.6WZ+ 0.75(D+WZ+)
0.9D+1.3WZ- 0.9D+1.6WZ- 0.75(D+WZ-)
0.9D+EX+ 0.9D+EX+ 0.75(D+EX+)
0.9D+EX- 0.9D+EX- 0.75(D+EX-)
0.9D+EZ+ 0.9D+EZ+ 0.75(D+EZ+)
0.9D+EZ- 0.9D+EZ- 0.75(D+EZ-)
0.75(0.9D+WX+)
0.75(0.9D+WX-)
0.75(0.9D+WZ+)
0.75(0.9D+WZ-)
0.75(0.9D+EX+)
0.75(0.9D+EX-)
0.75(0.9D+EZ+)
0.75(0.9D+EZ-)
3.5.5 Structural Analysis

After completion of generation of load combinations; the structural models, member

properties, basic loads and load combinations are checked thoroughly. After that, static
analysis is performed and analysis results are preserved for structural design.

3.6 Design of Structural Components

Using structural analysis results, all the members of the four types of building structure are
designed using standard codes and methods.

3.6.1 Design of Steel Structure

Steel structural members are designed as non-composite and composite following AISC
LRFD Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Welding, connections, anchor bolts, base
plates, nut-bolts, shear connectors etc. are also designed following AISC LRFD
Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Design procedures of steel structural
components are illustrated in Appendix A. Following specifications of materials are used in
designing steel members and joints:
Built-up section used.
ASTM A572 grade 50 steel plate with Fy =345MPa (50 ksi) and Fu = 447 MPa (65
ksi) is used.
Bearing type connection considered.
ASTM A325 bolts with Fu= 825 MPa (120 ksi) and Ft = 619 MPa (90 ksi) used.
Anchor rod tensile strength Fu=399 MPa (58 ksi) and yield strength Fy= 248 MPa
(36 ksi).
Concrete strength, fc = 21 MPa (3ksi) for slab and 25 MPa (3.5 ksi) for pedestal.
For welding, E70XX electrode used with FEXX= 481 MPa (70 ksi) for SMAW
welding.
For steel decking, rib height hr= 50 mm, rib width Wr = 150 mm, stud anchor above
steel deck top surface = 38 mm is considered.
ASTM A108 stud anchor with Fu= 447 MPa (65 ksi) is considered.

3.6.1.1 Design of Steel members

Steel secondary beams and girders are designed as non-composite and composite sections.
Steel columns and bracings are designed as non-composite sections. Design results of steel
members are given in Table 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. Necessary drawings are given in
Appendix-D.

Table 3.2 Steel secondary beam sections

Secondary beam notations

Designed non-composite sections

Designed composite sections

Ultimate negative moment (kN-m)

Ultimate positive moment (kN-m)

Ultimate shear (kN)

Pre-com. ultimate neg. moment (kN-m)

Pre-com. ultimate pos. moment (kN-m)

Com. ultimate neg. moment (kN-m)

Com. ultimate pos. moment (kN-m)

SB1 82 84 80 100(6) 26 35 54 121 90(5)
315(4)-S19* 250(4)-S30
SB2 91 123 93 100(6) 26 35 62 138 90(5)
385(5)-S19 290(4)-S32
SB3 80 92 76 100(6) 26 35 54 106 Same as SB1
335(4)-S19
SB4 0 141 80 100(6) 0 62 0 141 90(5)
420(5)-S19 300(4)-S22
SB5 45 30 49 100(6) 4 7 26 60 90(5)
260(4)-S12 160(4)-S26
GSB1 81 85 80 Same as SB1 23 25 54 115 Same as SB1
GSB2 52 43 45 140(6) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
200(4)-S19
GSB3 48 57 76 Same as SB5 10 20 26 69 Same as SB5
GSB4 65 62 58 100(5) 23 24 41 88 90(5)
300(4)-S19 200(4)-S28
LB 104 79 116 125(6) 7 7 7 7 Same as SB1
375(4)-S7 where
applicable

Note: 16 mm dia. stud anchors are considered for all secondary beams.
*100(6)315(4)-S19 = flange width (flange thickness) total depth (web thickness)-stud nos.
All dimensions of steel I-sections are in millimeter.

Table 3.3 Steel girder sections

Girder notations

Designed non-composite sections

Designed composite sections

Ultimate negative moment (kN-m)

Ultimate positive moment (kN-m)

Ultimate shear (kN)

Pre-com. ultimate neg. moment (kN-m)

Pre-comp. ultimate pos. moment (kN-m)

Com. ultimate negative moment (kN-m)

Composite ultimate pos. moment (kN-m)

G1 407 416 365 175(10) 127 127 350 456 145(8)
635(5)-S19 510(5.5)-S46
G2 213 218 200 145(8) 54 54 160 271 125(8)
500(5)-S19 400(5)-S34
G3 172 174 160 140(7) 54 54 136 231 125(7)
450(5)-S19 350(5)-S31
G4 358 357 320 150(10) 115 115 308 407 140(8)
610(5)-S19 480(5.5)-S44
G5 132 89 111 125(8) 26 27 88 132 120(6)
375(5)-S13 250(5)-S24
G6 282 117 218 150(10) 54 27 136 206 125(6)
510(5)-S13 350(5)-S30
G7 209 138 222 145(8) 46 46 136 206 Same as G6
500(5)-S13

Note: Transverse stiffener size for girders= 60mm (5mm) and stud anchor dia.=20 mm.
Transverse stiffener spacing for G1= 300mm,600mm,900mm.
Transverse stiffener spacing for G2, G6 and G7= 600mm,900mm.
Transverse stiffener spacing for G3= 900mm.
Transverse stiffener spacing for G4= 350mm,600mm,900mm.
Transverse stiffener spacing for G5= not required.
 Table 3.4 Steel secondary beam sections over roof level

Secondary beam notations

Designed non-composite sections

Designed composite sections

Ultimate negative moment (kN-m)

Ultimate positive moment (kN-m)

Ultimate shear (kN)

moment (kN-m) Pre-composite ultimate positive

Com. ultimate neg. moment (kN-m)

moment(kN-m) Pre-composite ultimate negative

(kN-m) Composite ultimate positive moment

LB 39 39 36 75(5) 7 7 39 39 75(5)
225(4)-S7 150(4)-S10
SRB 0 94 40 100(6) 0 52 0 94 90(5)
350(4)-S19 225(4)-S26
WTB 0 61 36 100(6) 0 52 0 61 75(5)
250(4)-S19 150(4)-S26

Note: 16 mm dia. stud anchors are considered for all secondary beams.

Table 3.5 Diagonal bracing sections

Bracing notations Ultimate axial load (kN) Designed steel section

DB1 356 200(6)200(4)

DB2 240 175(6)175(4)
DB3 227 175(6)175(4)
 Table 3.6 Designed steel column sections
st nd rd th th
Column Ground 1 floor 2 floor 3 floor 4 and 5
notations floor sections sections sections floor sections
sections
C1 330(20) 300(18) 275(16) 275(12) 225(10)
350(8) 350(8) 350(6) 350(5) 350(5)
C2 350(20) 320(18) 300(16) 275(12) 225(10)
350(8) 350(8) 350(6) 350(6) 350(5)
C3 330(18) 300(16) 275(16) 250(12) 225(10)
350(8) 350(8) 350(6) 350(5) 350(5)
C4 250(12) 250(10) 225(10) 225(8) 225(8)
350(6) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5)
C5 275(14) 260(12) 250(10) 225(10) 225(8)
350(6) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5)
C6 300(18) 280(18) 275(16) 250(15) 225(13)
350(8) 350(7) 350(6) 350(5) 350(5)
C7 225(10) 225(10) 225(10) 225(10) 225(10)
350(5) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5) 350(5)

3.6.1.2 Design of Connections

Column base plates, girder end plate connections, secondary beam simple shear connections,
secondary beam continuous connections, column joints, moment connections of beam with
column web, bracing end hinge connections are designed following design procedure of
Appendix A.

Base Plates and Anchor Bolts

Base plates and anchor bolts are designed following AISC LRFD Specification and given in
Table 3.7. Connection of steel column and RC pedestal by base plate and anchor bolts are
moment connection.
 Table 3.7 Base plates and anchor bolts schedule
Base Base plate size, Base plate Pedestal size, Anchor bolt Anchor
plate (mm mm) thickness (mm mm) nos. and bolt
notations (mm) dia.(mm) length
(mm)
BP1 600 510 40 700 625 4-20 305
BP2 600 540 40 700 650 4-20 305
BP3 560 490 35 650 600 4-20 305
BP4 500 350 22 600 450 4-20 305
BP5 500 355 24 600 450 4-20 305
BP6 550 450 33 650550 4-20 305
BP7 500 350 22 600 450 4-20 305

Girder End Plate Connections

Girder joint with column flange is designed as 4E extended end plate moment connections
following AISC LRFD Specification. A typical detailing of girder end plate is shown in
Figure 3.12. Summary of girder end plate connections are given in Table 3.8 and 3.9.

Figure 3.12 Typical end plate

 Table 3.8 Girder end plate joint schedule (NCF system)
End plate End plate size = Total bolt nos. Column Column
m
notations width depth thickness and dia.(mm) stiffener flange min
(mm mm mm) thickness thickness
(mm) (mm)
EP1 200 81517 8-22 10 13
EP2 200680 16 8-20 8 13
EP3 20063016 8-20 7 13
EP4 20079017 8-22 10 13
EP5 20055516 8-20 8 13
EP6 20069017 8-22 10 13
EP7 20068016 8-20 8 13

Note: de=40 mm, Pfo=50 mm, Pfi=50 mm, g=140 mm, stiffener size=90mm 156 mm 7mm.

Table 3.9 Girder end plate joint schedule (CF system)

End plate End plate size = Total bolt nos. Column Column
m
notations width depth thickness and dia.(mm) stiffener flange min
(mm mm mm) thickness thickness
(mm) (mm)
EP1 200 69017 8-22 8 13
EP2 200580 16 8-20 8 13
EP3 20053016 8-20 7 13
EP4 20066017 8-22 8 13
EP5 20043016 8-20 6 13
EP6 20053017 8-22 6 13
EP7 20053016 8-20 6 13

Note:de=40mm, Pfo=50mm, Pfi=50mm, g =140mm, stiffener size=90mm 156 mm 7 mm.

Simple Shear Connections

This type of connection is only designed for discontinuous end of both composite and non-
composite secondary beam for all floors shown in Figure 3.13 details.
 Figure 3.13 Simple shear connection

Continuous Connections

This type of connection is only designed for continuous end of both composite and non-
composite secondary beam for all floors shown in Figure 3.14 details. This type of
connection only adds cover plate arrangement with simple shear connection of Figure 3.13.

Figure 3.14 Continuous connection

Column Joints

rd
This type of connection is only designed for column joint at 3 floor level for all columns
and at roof top level where required as shown in Figure 3.15 details.

Figure 3.15 Column joint

Beam Moment Connection with Column Web

This type of connection is only designed for secondary beam moment connection with
column web at grid as shown in Figure 3.16 details.

Figure 3.16 Moment connection of beam with column web

Bracing End Hinge Connections

This type of connection is designed for diagonal bracing end joint with beam or column as
shown in Figure 3.17 details.

Figure 3.17 Connection of diagonal bracing

3.6.1.3 Design of Sub-Structure and Floor Slab

Sub structure of steel framed building comprises of RC footing, pedestal, grade beam, lift
core wall, water tank, slab on grade etc. Floor slab with or without steel deck is designed as
one-way RC slab. Following USD method as per ACI Building Code2008, these RC
members are designed. After completion of design, necessary drawing sheets have been
prepared. Specifications used for design of these RC members are as follows:
2
Allowable bearing capacity of soil= 168 kN/m (3.5 ksf) assumed.
Concrete strength, fc =21 MPa (3ksi) considered for all concrete work except
pedestal.
Concrete strength, fc = 24 MPa (3.5ksi) considered for pedestal.
Yield strength of reinforcing bar fy=415 MPa (60 ksi) considered.

3.6.2 Design of RC structure

Two types of RC framed building structure (two-way slab supported on beam and two-way
flat plate supported on column directly) are designed using the structural analysis results. RC
structure with slab-beam floor system comprises of RC footing, column, grade beam, lift
core shear wall, water tank, slab on grade, two-way floor slab, floor beam, stair case etc. RC
structure with flat plate floor system comprises of RC footing, column, grade beam, lift core
shear wall, water tank, slab on grade, flat plate, edge beam, stair case etc.
Following USD method as per ACI Building Code2008, RC structures have been designed.
After completion of design, necessary drawing sheets have been prepared. Specifications
used for design of RC structures are as follows:
2
Allowable bearing capacity of soil= 168 kN/m (3.5 ksf) assumed.
Concrete strength, fc=21 MPa (3ksi) considered for all concrete work except
column.
Concrete strength, fc = 24 MPa (3.5ksi) considered for column.
Yield strength of reinforcing bar fy=415 MPa (60 ksi) considered.

3.7 Stress Ratio for steel structures

After designing all the steel structural members, the section properties of STAAD.Pro
models for steel structures have been corrected. After that, final analysis is performed and
stress ratios from STAAD.Pro models are obtained which are given in Table 3.10, 3.11, 3.12,
3.13, 3.14 and 3.15.

Table 3.10 Stress ratio for columns (steel NCF system)

Column Stress Stress Stress Stress ratio Stress ratio Stress ratio
st nd rd th th
ratio at ratio at 1 ratio at 2 at 3 at 4 floor at 5 floor
ground floor floor floor
floor
C1 0.98-1.05 0.97-1.02 0.96-1.03 0.90-1.04 0.80-1.06 0.34-0.96
C2 0.99-1.01 0.99-1.00 0.95-0.98 0.96-0.98 0.87-0.94 0.37-0.51
C3 1.01-1.09 1.02-1.03 0.92-1.06 0.99-1.05 0.81-1.04 0.37-0.91
C4 0.81-1.00 0.95-1.04 0.79-1.09 0.82-1.06 0.58-1.05 0.38-0.88
C5 0.89-1.05 0.97-1.02 1.01-1.04 0.87-1.05 0.67-0.98 0.48-0.68
C6 0.80-0.94 0.82-1.03 0.82-1.03 0.82-1.02 0.82-1.00 0.60-0.71
C7 0.67-0.95 0.54-0.98 0.46-0.86 0.41-0.78 0.36-0.69 0.30-0.57
 Table 3.11 Stress ratio for columns (steel CF system)
Column Stress Stress ratio Stress ratio Stress ratio Stress ratio Stress
st nd rd th th
ratio at at 1 floor at 2 at 3 floor at 4 floor ratio at 5
ground floor floor
floor
C1 0.97-1.04 0.96-1.02 0.95-1.03 0.90-1.04 0.80-1.02 0.33-1.00
C2 0.99-1.01 0.98-1.01 0.95-0.98 0.95-0.98 0.87-0.94 0.37-0.50
C3 0.97-1.02 1.02-1.03 0.92-1.05 0.98-1.06 0.81-1.04 0.36-0.91
C4 0.75-1.05 0.67-1.01 0.61-1.08 0.56-1.06 0.44-1.05 0.32-0.86
C5 0.90-0.96 0.98-1.07 1.01-1.02 0.87-1.05 0.85-0.98 0.49-0.68
C6 0.80-0.97 0.82-1.03 0.81-1.03 0.81-1.02 0.82-1.00 0.59-0.71
C7 0.72-0.99 0.61-0.99 0.52-0.86 0.45-0.78 0.40-0.67 0.29-0.57

Table 3.12 Stress ratio for secondary beams

Secondary Stress ratio of non- Stress ratio of

beams composite beams composite beams
(when act as composite)

SB1 0.37-0.41 0.54-0.62

SB2 0.41-0.43 0.70-0.74
SB3 0.40-0.41 0.54-0.62
SB4 0.43 0.80-0.81
SB5 0.16-0.23 0.58-0.59
G-SB1 0.37-0.41 0.54-0.62
G-SB2 0.65-0.75 N/A
G-SB3 0.16-0.23 0.58-0.59
G-SB4 0.34-0.36 0.51-0.54
LB 0.14-1.46 0.28-0.65
 Table 3.13 Stress ratio for girders
Girders Stress ratio of non- Stress ratio of
composite girders composite girders
(when act as composite)

G1 0.13-0.51 0.16-0.81
G2 0.07-0.41 0.04-0.57
G3 0.09-0.41 0.06-0.56
G4 0.12-0.43 0.16-0.59
G5 0.17-0.22 0.32-0.39
G6 0.63 0.72
G7 0.50-0.94 0.94-1.01

Table 3.14 Stress ratio of non-composite secondary beams

(when act as non-composite)

Secondary beams Stress ratio

SB1 0.87-0.97
SB2 0.98-0.99
SB3 0.95-0.96
SB4 0.99
SB5 0.85-0.86
G-SB1 0.81-1.02
G-SB2 0.82-0.88
G-SB3 0.70-0.73
G-SB4 0.81-0.88
LB 0.57-1.02

Table 3.15 Stress ratio of non-composite girders

(when act as non-composite)

Girders Stress ratio

G1 0.77-1.07
 G2 0.19-0.93
G3 0.16-0.90
G4 0.96-1.02
G5 0.60-0.66
G6 0.93
G7 0.61-0.93

3.8 Lateral Drifts and Vertical Deflections

After completing design of all of the building members, the member properties of all the four
STAAD.Pro models have been corrected. Then after final analysis lateral drifts, top
mm Story drift at 1st slab level,

mm Story drift at 5th slab level,

deflections and vertical deflections are observed and recorded for discussion. Lateral drifts
and top deflections for all the four structures are shown in Table 3.16.

Table 3.16 Lateral Drifts and Top Deflections

(top deflection), mm Story drift at 6th slab level

Type of structures

mm Story drift at 2nd slab level,

Story drift at 3 slab level,

mm Story drift at 4th slab level,

rd

mm

Steel (NCF) 6 14 22 29 37 42
(H/929) (H/646) (H/571) (H/541) (H/519) (H/536)
Steel (CF) 7 16 26 36 45 51
(H/797) (H/566) (H/479) (H/447) (H/428) (H/440)
RC 3 5 8 11 14 16
(beam-slab) (H/2057) (H/1820) (H/1575) (H/1471) (H/140) (H/1409)

RC 4 7 11 16 20 23
(flat plate) (H/1649) (H/1304) (H/1100) (H/1012) (H/972) (H/973)

Note: H= Story height from base.

Vertical deflections of floor beams and girders for steel structures are given in Table 3.17,
3.18, 3.19 and 3.20. Pre-composite deflections of steel girders and beams must be smaller
than equal to L/360 or 1 inch (25 mm) which is smaller. Composite deflections of steel
girders and beams also must be smaller than equal to L/360 or 1 inch (25 mm) considering
50% live load which is smaller. Vertical deflections of floor beams and flat plates for RC
structures are given in Table 3.21 and 3.22.
. Table 3.17 Vertical deflections of steel secondary beams
Secondary Pre-composite Composite Pre-composite Composite
beam deflections of deflections of deflections of deflections of
notations non-composite non-composite composite beams composite
beams (mm) beams (mm) (mm) beams (mm)
SB1 5 3-10 10 6-18
SB2 7 6-7 17 12-14
SB3 5 1 11 2
SB4 9 2 25 5
SB5 6 4-6 18 6
G-SB1 5 3-10 10 6-18
G-SB2 2-18 1 N/A N/A
G-SB3 3 4-6 4-8 5
G-SB4 7 2 17 4
LB 1 2-4 1 1

Table 3.18 Vertical deflections of steel girders

Girder Pre-composite Composite Pre-composite Composite
notations deflections of deflections of non- deflections of deflections of
non-composite composite girders composite composite
girders (mm) (mm) girders (mm) girders (mm)
G1 3-5 2-5 4-9 4-10
G2 1-4 2-6 1-7 4-10
G3 1-6 1-3 5-9 2-6
G4 4-6 2-4 5-10 3-8
G5 2-3 2-3 4-6 4-6
G6 3 3 5 4
G7 1-2 `1-4 1-4 1-8
. Table 3.19 Vertical deflections of steel NC beams (without composite action)

Secondary beam Deflections during Deflections due to live

notations concreting (mm) load (mm)

SB1 9-16 19-31

SB2 9-11 24-25
SB3 13-15 4
SB4 11 9
SB5 6 12
G-SB1 6-8 4-26
G-SB2 1-2 1
G-SB3 2-3 3-6
G-SB4 10 14-19
LB 1 1-2

. Table 3.20 Vertical deflections of steel NC girders (without composite action)

Girder Deflections during Deflections due to

notations concreting (mm) live load (mm)

G1 3-5 6-17
G2 1-4 2-14
G3 1-6 2-10
G4 4-6 9-16
G5 2-3 2-3
G6 Stair Landing Beam Stair Landing Beam
G7 1-2 1-4
 Table 3.21 Vertical deflections of floor beams (RC beam-slab system)
Beam notations Dead load live load deflections
deflections (mm) (mm)
B1 3-4 2-3
B2 2-5 1-2
B3 2-4 1
B4 1-3 1
B5 1 1
B6 2-4 1
B7 2-4 1-3
B8 3-4 1-3
B9 3 3
B10 2-4 1-2

Table 3.22 Vertical deflections of RC flat plate system

Flat plate types Dead load live load deflections

deflections (mm) (mm)
Middle panel 6 6
Side panel 7 6
Corner panel 11 2

3.9 Estimating and Costing

After completion of structural design and drawing; estimating and costing are required for all
the four types of structure. At first, item rate analysis and schedule of unit rate have been
prepared. After that, complete estimation and costing are completed for two types of steel
(NCF and CF system) and two types of RC (beam-slab and flat plate system) structure.

3.9.1 Rate Analysis and Schedule of Item Rate

For RC structural works and other civil and sanitary works, schedule of rate for different
item has been prepared following PWD item rate analysis procedure as per present market
rate of material, labor and other related costs.
For steel structural works, schedule of rate for different item of steel structure has been
prepared by analyzing item rates as per present market rate of material, labor and other
related costs following guide lines of PWD rate analysis procedure and present practice of
different steel structure fabrication companies. Schedule of item rate is given in Appendix-C.

3.9.2 Estimating and Costing for Steel Structure

Estimating and costing have been prepared for two types of steel structure (NCF and CF
system) using schedule of item rate. Now the summary of costing is shown in Table 3.23,
3.24, 3.25, 3.26 and 3.27.

Table 3.23 Foundation cost up to plinth (steel NCF and CF system)

Type of works Total cost (lac BDT)

1.Structural works 282

2.Other civil works 115
Total foundation cost up to plinth 397
 th
Table 3.24 Typical floor cost of steel NCF system with deck (ground to 4 floor slab)
Type of Sub Item name Estimated Estimated cost Total cost
work component quantity (lac BDT) (lac BDT)

1.Structural Structural Secondary 63723 kg 215 286

works steel beams
Girders 34320 kg
Columns 23694 kg
Bracings 2425 kg
Joints Joint plates 9141 kg
Nut bolts 2826 kg
Stud anchor 1691 kg
Deck Decking 33541 kg
sheet
Decking 64 kg
screw

RC slab 71

2.Civil works 130

3. Sanitary works 12
Total cost per floor 428
 th
Table 3.25 Typical floor cost of steel CF system with deck (ground to 4 floor slab)
Type of Sub Item name Estimated Estimated cost Total cost
work component quantity (lac BDT) (lac BDT)

1.Structural Structural Secondary 47784 kg 184 255

works steel beams
Girders 25901 kg
Columns 23694 kg
Bracings 2425 kg
Joints Joint plates 7813 kg
Nut bolts 2826 kg
Stud anchor 2955 kg
Deck Decking 33541 kg
sheet
Decking 64 kg
screw
RC slab 71

2.Civil works 130

3. Sanitary works 12
Total cost per floor 397
 Table 3.26 Top floor cost of steel NCF system with deck
Type of Sub Item name Estimated Estimated cost Total cost
work component quantity (lac BDT) (lac BDT)

1.Structural Structural Secondary 67163 kg 238 321

works steel beams
Girders 38924 kg
Columns 29107 kg
Bracings 2425 kg
Joints Joint plates 9141 kg
Nut bolts 3278 kg
Stud anchor 1846 kg
Deck Decking 36442 kg
sheet
Decking 69 kg
screw
RC slab 83

2.Civil works 135

3. Sanitary works 12
4. Water tanks 41
Total cost per floor 509
 Table 3.27 Top floor cost of steel CF system with deck
Type of Sub Item name Estimated Estimated cost Total cost
work component quantity (lac BDT) (lac BDT)

1.Structural Structural Secondary 50039 kg 204 287

works steel beams
Girders 28641 kg
Columns 29107 kg
Bracings 2425 kg
Joints Joint plates 9682 kg
Nut bolts 3278kg
Stud anchor 1846 kg
Deck Decking 36442 kg
sheet
Decking 69 kg
screw
RC slab 83

2.Civil works 135

3. Sanitary works 12
4. Water tanks 40
Total cost per floor 474

3.9.3 Estimating and Costing for RC Structure

Estimating and costing have been prepared for two types of RC structure (beam-slab and flat
plate floor system) using schedule of item rate. Now the summary of costing is shown in
Table 3.28, 3.29, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32 and 3.33.
Table 3.28 Foundation cost up to plinth (RC beam-slab system)
Type of works Total cost
(lac BDT)
1.Structural works 367
2.Other civil works 114
Total foundation cost up to plinth 481

Table 3.29 Foundation cost up to plinth (RC flat plate system)

Type of works Total cost (lac BDT)

1.Structural works 376

2.Other civil works 114
Total foundation cost up to plinth 490

Table 3.30 Typical floor cost of RC beam-slab system

th
(ground to 4 floor slab)
Type of works Total cost (lac BDT)

1.Structural works 234

2. Civil works 130
3. Sanitary works 12
Total cost per floor 376

Table 3.31 Typical floor cost of RC flat plate system

th
(ground to 4 floor slab)
Type of works Total cost (lac BDT)

1.Structural works 240

2. Civil works 130
3. Sanitary works 12
Total cost per floor 382
 Table 3.32 Top floor cost of RC beam-slab system
Type of works Total cost ( lac BDT)

1.Structural works 253

2. Civil works 135
3. Sanitary works 12
4. Water tanks 40
Top floor total cost 440

Table 3.33 Top floor cost of RC flat plate system

Type of works Total cost ( lac BDT)

1.Structural works 259

2. Civil works 135
3. Sanitary works 12
4. Water tanks 40
Top floor total cost 446

3.10 Concluding Remarks

In this chapter structural analysis, design, estimating and costing of the selected six story
garments factory building have been completed using two types of steel structure (NCF and
CF system) and two types of RC structure (beam-slab and flat plate floor system). Summary
of all data for the four types of structure is now available which has been analyzed in the
next chapter.
 Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

Comparison, analysis and discussion have been performed using all data obtained from load
calculation, structural modeling and analysis, design, estimating and costing of the selected
four types of structural system for the same building.

4.2 Structural Steel Weight Comparison

Structural steel weight comparison of steel structure for non-composite floor (NCF) and
composite floor (CF) system is shown in Table 4.1. Graphical presentation of structural steel
weight comparison is also shown in Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
Typical floor column
Typical floor secondary

Typical floor bracing

Table 4.1 Comparison of structural steel weight

Weight of typical floor
Type of steel structure

beam weight (kg/m )

weight (kg/m )

weight (kg/m )

(kg/m ) Total weight of building

Typical floor girder weight

system only (kg/m )

Weight of typical floor

2

with column (kg/m )

2

NCF 13.42 7.23 5 0.51 23.51 29 29.57

system
25% wt. savings for

CF 10.06 5.45 5 0.51 18.36 23.86 24.32

24 % wt. savings for

18 % wt. savings for

18 % wt. savings for

system
22 % wt. savings for
composite action.

Remain unchanged.

Remain unchanged.

composite action.

composite action.

composite action.
Comment

composite action.
 Steel structure (NCF) Steel structure (CF)

100% 100% 100 100% 100% 100%

100% % 100% 100%
82%
75% 78%
76% 82%

Secondar Girder weight Bracin Floor Typical Total

y beam Colu g system floor weight of
weight mn weigh weight weight building
weigh t
t

Figure 4.1 Comparison of structural steel weight

Secondary beam Girder

Column Bracing
Joint plates, nut bolts, stud anchors etc.

2%
10
%

17% 46%

25
%

Figure 4.2 Structural steel weight analysis for non-composite floor system

.
 Secondary beam Girder
Column Bracing
Joint plates, nut bolts, stud anchors etc.

2%
12
%

21% 42%

23
%

Figure 4.3 Structural steel weight analysis for composite floor system

From the analysis and comparison given in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 the major
findings are as follows:
When floor system of steel structure is designed as composite then secondary beam
weight decreases about 25% and girder weight decreases about 24%. Column and
bracing weights remain same.
Due to composite action, weight savings for floor system (only beam and girder) is
about 22%. Weight savings for typical floor (including column, bracing etc.) is about
18%. Finally net weight savings for total building is about 18%.
Weight of secondary steel I-beam is about 42-46% of total structural steel weight. So
designers should be careful during floor system planning to ensure cost effective
spacing and span of secondary beam.
Structural steel weight per square meter is 29.57 kilogram for non-composite system
and 24.32 kilogram for composite system.

4.3 Cost Comparison of Steel Structures

Construction cost comparison of steel structure (with and without steel deck) for non-
composite floor (NCF) and composite floor (CF) system is shown in Table 4.2. Graphical
presentation of cost comparison is also shown in Figure 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8.
 Table 4.2 Cost comparison of steel structure
Type of steel structure NCF with deck NCF without CF with CF without
deck deck deck
Foundation Structural cost 282 282 282 282
cost up to
plinth Total cost
(lac BDT) 397 397 397 397

Typical Structural steel

171 171 139 139
floor cost cost
(lac BDT) Structural cost 286 289 255 258
Total cost 428 .431 397 400
Super Structural steel
1048 1048 851 851
structure cost
cost Structural cost 1750 1768 1561 1579
(lac BDT) Total cost 2649 2668 2460 2463
Total Total structural 1048 1048 851 851
project cost steel cost
(lac BDT) Total structural
2032 2051 1843 1862
cost
Total project cost 3046 3065 2857 2860
Total Total structural
1591 1545 1302 1262
project cost steel cost
with fire Total structural
2575 2547 2294 2272
proof cost
spray Total project cost
3589 3561 3308 3271
(lac BDT)
 Foundation cost upto plinth Structural steel cost
Super structure average cost Total building cost
Total building cost with fire proof spray Structural steel cost with
steel deck

4606

12600 12503

10696 10760
10028
10039

9308 9372 8640

8651
3680 3680 2991
2991
8364 8364 8364
8364

NCF with deck NCF without deck CF with deck

CF without deck

Figure 4.4 Cost of steel structure (BDT per square meter)

Structural steel cost Structural cost Total cost

100%
102% 93%
93%

100%
101% 89%
90%

100% 100% 81%

81%

NCF with deck NCF without deck CF with deck

CF without deck

Figure 4.5 Super structure cost comparison of steel structure

 Structural steel cost Structural cost Total cost

100%
101% 94%
94%
100%
101% 91%
92%

100% 100% 81%

81%

NCF with deck NCF without deck CF with deck

CF without deck

Figure 4.6 Total building cost comparison of steel structure

Structural steel cost Structural cost Total cost

100%
99% 92%
91%
100%
99% 89%
88%

100% 97% 82%

79%

NCF with deck NCF without deck CF with deck

CF without deck

Figure 4.7 Total building cost comparison of steel structure (with fire proof spray)

Only structural steel cost Other structural elements

cost
Non-structural elements cost

33% 33% 35%

35%

33% 33% 35%

35%

34% 34% 30%

30%
NCF with deck NCF without deck CF with deck
CF without deck

Figure 4.8 Distribution of total building cost for steel structure

From the analysis and comparison shown in Table 4.2 and Figure 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8
the major findings are as follows:
Composite system brings significant economic benefit for steel structure which is
described below.
Super structure cost: Only structural steel cost savings is about 19%, total
structural cost savings is about 11% and finally total cost savings is about 7-9%.
Total building cost: Only structural steel cost savings is about 19%, total structural
cost savings is about 9% and finally total building cost savings is about 6-7%.
Total building cost with fire proof spray: Only structural steel cost savings is
about 18%, total structural cost savings is about 11% and finally total building cost
savings is about 8%.
Analyzing total project cost, only structural steel cost is 30-34%, other structural
cost is 33-35% and non-structural cost is 33-35% i.e. only structural cost is about
two third. So designers should care about economic and safe structural design.
If fire proof spray is used for steel structure then total building cost increases about
14-18%.
Cost of structural steel is BDT 2991-3680 per square meter and cost of structural
steel with steel deck is BDT 3949-4606 per square meter.

4.4 Cost Comparison of Steel and RC Structures

Construction cost comparison of steel structure (NCF and CF system with and without steel
deck) and RC structure (slab-beam and flat plate floor system) is shown in Table 4.3.
Graphical presentation of cost comparison is also shown in Figure 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13
and 4.14.
 Table 4.3 Cost comparison of steel and RC structure
Type of Foundation cost Super structure Total building Total building
structure up to plinth (lac cost (lac BDT) cost (lac BDT) cost with fire
BDT) proof spray (lac

costStructural
BDT)

Structural
Structural

Structural
Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost
cost
cost

cost
Steel (NCF 283 397 1750 2650 2032 3047 2575 3589
with deck)
Steel (NCF 283 397 1768 2668 2051 3065 2547 3561
without deck)

Steel (CF with 283 397 1561 2460 1843 2858 2294 3308
deck)
Steel (CF 282 397 1579 2463 1862 2861 2272 3271
without deck)
RC (beam- 367 482 1425 2324 1792 2806 N/A N/A
slab)
RC (flat plate ) 376 491 1461 2360 1837 2851 N/A N/A

Structural cost Non-structural cost

33% 33% 35% 35%

36% 36%

67% 67% 65% 65%

64% 64%

Steel NCF Steel Steel CF Steel CF RC beam-slab RC flat

with NCF with without plate
deck without deck deck
deck

Figure 4.9 Distribution of total building cost of steel and RC structures

 Foundation cost upto plinth Super structure
average cost
Total building average cost Average cost with fire
proof spray

12600 12503
11621 11481

10696 10760 10028 985610039 10007

9308 9372 8156 828

8641 8651
5

8364 8364 8364 101478364 10330

Steel NCF Steel Steel CF Steel CF RC beam-slab RC flat

with NCF with without plate
deck without deck deck
deck

Figure 4.10 Cost of steel and RC structure (BDT per square meter)

Only foundation cost Total cost upto plinth

100%
102%
82% 82% 82%
82%

100%
102% 77% 77% 77%
77%

RC beam- RC flat Steel NCF Steel NCF Steel CF Steel CF

slab plate withdec without withdeck without
dec
k deck k

Figure 4.11 Comparison of foundation cost up to plinth

 Structural cost
Total cost

114%
115% 106%
100% 106%
102%

123% 124%
100% 103%
110% 111%

RC beam- RC flat Steel NCF Steel NCF Steel CF Steel CF

slab plate withdec without withdec without
deck
k deck k

Figure 4.12 Super structure cost comparison

Structural cost
Total cost

109%
109% 102%
100% 102%
102%

114% 115%
100% 103%
103% 104%

RC beam- RC flat Steel NCF Steel NCF Steel CF Steel CF

slab plate withdec without withdec without
deck
k deck k

Figure 4.13 Total building cost comparison

 Structural cost
Total cost

128%
127% 118%
100% 117%
102%

144% 142%
100% 103%
128% 127%

RC beam- RC flat Steel NCF Steel NCF Steel CF Steel CF

slab plate withdec without withdec without
deck
k deck k

Figure 4.14 Total building cost comparison with fire proof spray at steel structure

From the analysis and comparison shown in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13
and 4.14 the major findings are as follows:
For the selected building, only structural cost is about 64-67% for both steel and RC
structural system. So structural designers should care about economic and safe
structural design.
Construction cost of steel structure is BDT 10028-10760 per square meter and when
fire proof spray is added then it becomes BDT 11481-12600 per square meter. Again
construction cost for RC structure is BDT 9856-10007 per square meter.
Compared to steel structure, foundation cost up to plinth of RC structure increases
about 22% for beam-slab floor system and about 24% increases for flat plate floor
system. So initial investment for RC structure is more.
RC flat plate system is about 2% more costly than RC beam-slab system.
Compared to RC systems, super structure total cost increases about 12-15% for steel
non-composite system and about 4-6% increases for steel composite system. Only
super structure structural cost increases about 19-23% for steel non-composite
system and about 7-11% increases for steel composite system compared to RC
system.
Compared to RC buildings, steel building total cost increases about 7-9% for non-
composite and about 0-2% for composite system. Total structural cost of steel
building increases about 11-15% for non-composite and about 0-4% for composite
system compared to RC structures.
 Compared to RC buildings, steel building total cost increases about 25-28% for non-
composite and about 15-18% for composite system when fire proof spray is added.
In this case only structural cost increases about 38-44% for steel non-composite
system and about 23-28% increases for steel composite system compared to RC
system.
Only total structural cost increases about 3% for flat plate, about 3-4% for steel CF
system and about 13-15% for steel NCF system compared to RC beam-slab system.
Compared to RC beam-slab system, only total structural cost increases about 27-
28% for steel CF system and about 42-44% for steel NCF system when fire proof
spray is added.

4.5 Comparison of Seismic Load

After calculation of seismic load, significant variation is observed. Comparison of seismic

load and related parameters are shown in Table 4.4. Graphical presentation of seismic load
comparison is also shown in Figure 4.15.

Table 4.4 Comparison of seismic load

Item Steel NCF Steel Steel CF Steel CF RC beam- RC flat
with deck NCF with deck without slab floor plate
without deck floor
deck
Seismic 174354 191377 174354 191377 283447 292975
dead load kN kN kN kN kN kN
Total base 4585 5033 4585 5033 10170 10512
shear kN kN kN kN kN kN
Period 0.7885 0.7885 0.7885 0.7885 0.6935 0.6935
sec. sec. sec. sec. sec. sec.
Ct 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.073 0.073
Response 10 10 10 10 8 8
modification
factor, R
Additional 253 kN 278 kN 253 kN 278 kN 0 0
top force, Ft
 Seismic dead load Total base shear Additional top force
Ft

109 109 222%

100% % 100 % 230%
%

110% 110%
100% 100%

163%
100% 110% 168%
100% 110%

Steel NCF Steel Steel CF Steel CF RC beam- RC flat

with NCF with without slab plate
deck without deck deck floor floor
deck

Figure 4.15 Comparison of seismic load

From the analysis and comparison shown in Table 4.4 and Figure 4.15 the major findings are
as follows:
Compared to steel structure, base shear due to seismic force is 102-122% more for
RC beam-slab system and 109-130% more for RC flat plate system.
Compared to steel structure, seismic dead load is 48-63% more for RC beam-slab
system and 53-68% more for RC flat plate system.

4.6 Comparison of Gravity Loads

Significant variation is observed after calculation of gravity loads such as self weight of
structure, dead load etc. Comparison of gravity loads are shown in Table 4.5. Graphical
presentation of gravity load comparison is also shown in Figure 4.16.
 Table 4.5 Comparison of gravity loads
Item Steel Steel NCF Steel CF Steel CF RC beam- RC flat
NCF without with deck without slab floor plate
with deck deck deck floor
Structural 87185 95694 85726 94235 196450 200320
self weight kN kN kN kN kN kN
Total dead 153714 162223 152255 160764 258562 262917
load kN kN kN kN kN kN
Total 270047 278556 268588 277097 377550 381905
foundation kN kN kN kN kN kN
axial load
(un-factored)
Total 370590 380802 368842 379050 500654 505880
foundation kN kN kN kN kN kN
axial load
(factored)
Typical 3354 3461 3336 3443 4403 4492
footing axial kN kN kN kN kN kN
load
(un-factored)
Typical 4350 4479 4328 4457 5733 5893
footing axial kN kN kN kN kN kN
load
(factored)
 Structural self weight Total dead load
Total foundation axial load (un-factored) Total foundation axial
load (factored) Typical footing axial load (un-factored)
Typical footing axial load (factored)

132% 135%

131% 134%

103% 135% 137%

100% 99%
102% 140%
103% 143%
100% 99%
103%

100% 103 102

99
% % % 168%
171%
100% 103% 99%
103%
225%
100% 106%
230%
99% 105%
100% 110%
98% 108%

Steel NCF Steel Steel CF Steel CF RC beam- RC flat

with NCF with without slab plate
deck without deck deck floor floor
deck

Figure 4.16 Comparison of gravity loads

From the analysis and comparison shown in Table 4.5 and Figure 4.16 the major findings are
as follows:
Structural self weight is 125% more for RC beam-slab system and 130% more for
RC flat plate system compared to steel NCF system with deck.
Dead load is 68% more for RC beam-slab system and 71% more for RC flat plate
system compared to steel NCF system with deck.
Compared to steel NCF system with deck, total foundation axial load (un-factored)
is 40% more for RC beam-slab system and 43% more for RC flat plate system.

4.7 Comparison of Lateral Story Drift

Comparison of lateral story drift and top deflection are shown in Table 4.6 for two types of
steel (NCF and CF system) and two types of RC structures (beam-slab and flat plate floor
system).
 slab
slab
Story drift at 1 slab

slab
slab

Story drift at 6 slab

level (top deflection),
th
st

nd

Story drift at 5
th
Story drift at 2
Table 4.6 Comparison of lateral story drifts

Story drift at 4
rd

th
Story drift at 3
level, mm

level, mm

level, mm
Type of structures

level, mm
level, mm

mm
Steel NCF 6 14 22 29 37 42
(H/929) (H/646) (H/571) (H/541) (H/519) (H/536)
Steel CF 7 16 26 36 45 51
(H/797) (H/566) (H/479) (H/447) (H/428) (H/440)
RC 3 5 8 11 14 16
beam-slab (H/2057) (H/1820) (H/1575) (H/1471) (H/140) (H/1409)

RC 4 7 11 16 20 23
flat plate (H/1649) (H/1304) (H/1100) (H/1012) (H/972) (H/973)

Note: H=Story height from base.

From the comparison shown in Table 4.6 about lateral story drift and top deflection, the
major findings are as follows:
The lateral story drift and top deflection of all the four types of structure are within
allowable limit.
Lateral stiffness of RC beam-slab system is the highest of all. Lateral stiffness of RC
nd rd
flat plate system is the 2 highest and that of steel non-composite system is the 3
highest. Lateral stiffness of steel composite system is the lowest of all.

4.8 Comparison of Vertical Deflection

Comparison of vertical deflection is shown in Table 4.7 for all the four types of structure
selected for the research work.
 Table 4.7 Comparison of vertical deflection

m m
Type of structure Typical floor max Typical floor max
Dead load Live load
deflection (mm) deflection (mm)
Steel non-composite floor Beam: 9 Beam: 10
Girder: 6 Girder: 6
Steel composite floor Beam: 18 Beam: 18
Girder: 10 Girder: 10
RC beam-slab floor Beam: 5 Beam: 3
RC flat plate floor Flat plate:11 Flat plate: 6

From the comparison shown in Table 4.7 about vertical deflection, the major findings are as
follows:
Vertical deflections of all the four types of structure are within allowable limit.
nd
Vertical deflection due to dead load: Lowest for RC beam-slab system, 2 lowest
rd
for steel non-composite system, 3 lowest for RC flat plate system and highest for
steel composite system.
nd
Vertical deflection due to live load: Lowest for RC beam-slab system, 2 lowest for
rd
RC flat plate system, 3 lowest for steel non-composite system and highest for steel
composite system.
Though, pre-composite deflection (18 mm) of steel composite secondary beam is
within allowable limit (minimum of L/360 and 25 mm); visible deflection may be
cause of panic and objection from client about structural safety and ponding effect.
Slab thickness will increase at mid span for excess deflection. Considering
significant economic advantage of composite section, this problem may be reduced
properly by using any of the following treatment:
(a) During fabrication of steel beam at shop, cambering may be introduced up to
80% of calculated deflection.
(b) Secondary beam continuous connection may be designed as friction type (slip
critical) connection in lieu of bearing type connection. It must be confirmed by
making the connection snug tight condition using high tension bolts and
proper
calibrated wrench during erection.
 (c) Only secondary beam may be shored at mid span with single prop before
concreting. After seven days, this prop may be removed and then self-weight
deflection will not be significant as composite action starts.
(d) Structural engineers should be more careful during planning of floor system to
make the secondary beam spacing and length effective to minimize vertical
deflection.

4.9 Comparison of Stress Ratio

Steel non-composite and composite members are designed following AISC LRFD method.
Using these designed values, finally section properties are changed into STAAD.Pro model
which shows that the stress ratios are smaller than one. So designed sections are correct.
Comparison of stress ratio is shown in Table 4.8 for two types of steel structure assigned for
the research work.

Table 4.8 Comparison of stress ratio

Steel non-composite floor system Steel composite floor system
Beam Girder Column Beam Girder Column
stress

stress

stress
stress

stress

stress
STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro

STAAD.Pro
Designed

Designed

Designed

Designed

Designed

Designed
ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio
ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio

ratio
stress

stress

stress

stress

stress

stress
1 0.97 1 0.99 1 0.98 1 0.62 1 0.81 1 0.97

4.10 Concluding Remarks

From the analysis and comparison of all data obtained from the design program assigned for
the research, some important findings are achieved. From these findings, some conclusions
and recommendations are drawn as the outcome of the research program.
 Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

Comparative study has been performed using all data obtained from load calculation,
structural modeling, analysis, design, estimating and costing of the selected building using
two types of RC structure (beam-slab and flat plate floor) and two types of steel structure
(composite and non-composite floor). From the comparative study of steel structure with
composite floor and non-composite floor system, important findings are obtained. Again
from comparative study on two types of RC and two types of steel structure; important
findings about economy, structural performance and other related structural matters are
obtained as research outcome. Based on these findings, final conclusions are drawn and
presented in the following sections.

5.2 Conclusions

From the comparative study of the four types of structure with different floor system of same
building; major findings and conclusions about construction cost, structural behavior and
other structural matters are as follows.

5.2.1 Steel Structure

Steel structure with composite and non-composite floor system has significant variation
about economy and structural performance. Major conclusions are as follows:
When floor system of steel structure is designed as composite then about 18%
structural steel weight savings is possible.
Composite system brings significant economic benefit for steel structure i.e. only
structural steel cost savings is about 18-19%, total structural cost savings is 9-11%
and finally total building cost savings is 6-8%.
Weight of secondary steel I-beam is about 42-46% of total structural steel weight. So
designers should be careful about cost effective spacing and span of secondary beam
during planning of floor system.
 If fire proof spray is used for steel structure then total building cost increases about
14-18%.
Pre-composite vertical deflection of composite secondary steel I-beam is a
serviceability problem which should be minimized by cambering, introducing
friction type connection and shored construction.

5.2.2 Reinforced Concrete and Steel Structure

When same building is designed as reinforced concrete and steel structure then construction
cost varies significantly. The following conclusions are drawn from comparative study:
Compared to steel structure, foundation cost up to plinth increases about 22% for
RC beam-slab system and about 24% for RC flat plate system. So initial investment
for RC structure is more than steel structure.
Compared to RC beam-slab system, finally complete building cost increases 1.6%
for RC flat plate system, 1.8% for steel composite system and about 9% for steel
non-composite system.
Compared to RC systems, finally complete building cost for steel structure
increases about 15-18% for composite system and about 25-28% for non-composite
system when fire proof spray is added.
Only total structural cost increases about 3% for flat plate, about 3-4% for steel CF
system and about 13-15% for steel NCF system compared to RC beam-slab system.
Compared to RC beam-slab system, only total structural cost increases about 27-
28% for steel CF system and about 42-44% for steel NCF system when fire proof
spray is added.
For the selected building, only structural cost is about 64-67% for steel and RC
structural systems. So structural designers should care about economic and safe
structural design.

5.2.3 Structural Behavior and Performance

When same building is designed as reinforced concrete and steel structure then structural
behavior and performance varies widely. The following conclusions are drawn from
comparative study:
Considering lateral drift and vertical deflections, stiffness of RC beam-slab system is
nd
the highest of all. Stiffness of RC flat plate system is the 2 highest and that of steel
 rd
non-composite system is the 3 highest. Stiffness of steel composite system is the
lowest of all but within allowable limit.
Compared to steel structure, base shear due to seismic force is 102-122% more for
RC beam-slab system and 109-130% more for RC flat plate system.
Compared to steel non-composite floor system with deck:
Structural self weight is 125% more for RC beam-slab system and 130% more for
RC flat plate system.
Dead load is 68% more for RC beam-slab system and 71% more for RC flat plate
system.
Foundation load is 40% more for RC beam-slab system and 43% more for RC flat
plate system.

5.3 Final Remarks

From the stand point of serviceability, RC beam-slab structural system is the most suitable
one. But other three structural systems are also within allowable limit for serviceability
criteria.

Steel non-composite system is costlier but steel composite system is slightly (0.2-1.8%)
costlier than RC structure. But if effect of construction time duration is considered then RC
structure may become relatively costlier than steel composite system which is beyond the
scope of this research.

Steel structure which is more ductile and attracts less seismic force (only 43-45% of RC
structure) may be considered as better structural system in seismically active zones.

Finally, steel structure with composite floor system which optimizes economy,
serviceability, construction time, fire proofing system and seismic performance may be
considered as optimum structural system for multistory industrial buildings in Bangladesh.

5.4 Recommendations for future work

Effect of construction time period, maintenance cost and composite steel column may be
included for comparative study of steel and RC structures. These were beyond the scope of
this research.
Comparative study of steel and RC structure may be conducted for long free span with plate
girder, hybrid girder, composite plate girder, composite hybrid girder, deep lattice girder etc.
with three way beam system for single and multistory buildings.

Comparative study about economy and serviceability of open-web joist and secondary I-
beam may be conducted.

The weight of secondary I-beam is about 42-47% of total structural steel. So economically
effective spacing and span length may be determined by comparative study.

Feasibility of pre cast and pre-stressed RC slab supported on steel beam may be studied as
composite and non-composite.
 REFERENCES

AISC (2011). Design Examples, Version 14, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, Illinois, United States.

AISC (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel
Construction, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Dabhade, U.D., Hedaoo, N.A., Gupta, L.M. and Ronghe, G.N. (2009). Time and Cost
Evaluation of Construction of Steel Framed Composite Floor with Precast Concrete Floor
th
Structure, 26 International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction
(ISARC), pp.139-148.

Fisher, J.M. and Kloiber, L.A. (2006). Design Guide No. 1, Base Plate and Anchor Rod
nd
Design, 2 Edition, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Fintel, M. (1986). Handbook of Concrete Engineering, Second Edition, CBS

Publishers and Distributors, Shahdra, Delhi, India.

Johnson, R.P. (2004). Composite Structure of Steel and Concrete, Volume-1,

Blackwell
Scientific Publication, UK, P188.

Murray, T.M., Allen, D.E. and Ungar, E.E. (1997). Design Guide No. 11, Floor Vibrations
Due to Human Activity, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Murray, T.M., Sumner, E.A. (2003). Design Guide No. 4, Extended End-Plate Moment
nd
Connections-Seismic and Wind Applications, 2 Edition, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC,
Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Miller, D.K. (2006). Design Guide No. 21, Welded Connections-A Primer for Engineers,
Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Murray, T.M., Shoemaker, W.L. (2002). Design Guide No. 16, Flush and Extended
Multiple-Row Moment End-Plate Connections, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago,
Illinois, United States.

Panchal, R. and Patodi, S.C. (2010). Steel-Concrete Composite Building under Seismic
Forces, NBM and CW, NBM Media Pvt. Ltd.,
India.

Panchel, R. and Marathe, P.M. (2011). Comparative Study of R.C.C., Steel and
Composite (G+30 Story) Building, International Conference on Current Trends in
Technology, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, India, pp.382-481.

Rackham, J.W., Couchman, G.H. and Hicks, S.J. (2009). Composite Slabs and
Beams Using Steel Decking: Best Practice for Design and Construction, MCRMA
Technical Paper no.-13, SCI (steel construction institute) Publication, Askot, Berkshire,
P300.

Ruddy, J.L., Marlo, J.P., Ioannides, S.A. and Alfawakhiri, F. (2003). Design Guide No. 19,
Fire Resistance of Structural Steel Framing, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago,
Illinois, United States.

Salmon, C.G. and Johnson, J.E. (1995). Steel Structures, Design and Behavior,
Fourth
Edition, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, United States, P1010.

Smith, B.S. and Coull, A. (1991). Tall Building Structures: Analysis and Design,
John
Wiley and Sons, New York, United States.

Schueller, W. (1986). High-rise Building Structure, Second Edition, Robert E.

Krieger
Publishing Company, Malaya, Florida, United States.

Taranath, B.S. (1998). Steel, Concrete and Composite Design of Tall Building,
Second
Edition, McGraw-Hill Companies, New York, United States.

West, M., Fisher, J. and Griffis, L.G. (2003). Design Guide No. 3, Serviceability Design
nd
Considerations for Steel Buildings, 2 Edition, Steel Design Guide Series, AISC, Chicago,
Illinois, United States.
 Appendix-A

A.1 Theory of Design of Steel Structure

Different components of steel structure such as column, beam, plate girder, hybrid girder,
composite beam, composite girder etc. may be designed as per AISC Specifications. Steel
structural members may be designed as non-composite or composite using LRFD method as
per AISC Specifications 1993, 2005 and 2010. Welding, connections, anchor bolts, base
plates, nut-bolts, stud anchors etc. may also be designed as per AISC Specifications 1993,
2005 and 2010. The design steps and procedures of different steel and composite structural
members, base plate with anchor bolts, end plate rigid connection, simple shear connection,
continuous connections etc. are stated here in brief which are used in designing steel and
composite structural components for the research work.

A.1.1 Design of Steel Structural Components

This topics deals with the design procedure of laterally supported beam, laterally
unsupported beam, plate girder, hybrid girder, column with bi-axial moment following AISC
LRFD 1993. These design procedures are directly used for design of steel structural
members for the research and study.

A.1.1.1 Laterally Supported Beam Design

Given data:
Ultimate moment, Mu
Ultimate shear, Vu
Built-up section.
Yield strength of flange, Fyf
Yield strength of web, Fyw
Yield strength of welding, FEXX
Lateral supports are adequately stiff and braced.
Residual stress, Fr
Step-1: Section selection: Select a trial section.
Step-2: Calculate section properties:
Calculate,
Ix =Moment of inertia of I-section about strong axis.
Sx= Ix /c= Elastic section modulus about strong axis.
Zx =Plastic modulus about strong axis.
Step-3: Check flange and web local buckling limit state:
For flange:
Calculate,
Kc= 4/ ( h/tw) to be 0.35 kc0.763
=bf/2tf
p= 65/ Fyf
r=141/(Fy-10) for rolled I-shaped section.
r=162/{(Fyf-16.5)/Kc} for welded I-shaped
section. For web:
Calculate,
=h/tw
p= 640/Fy
r=970/Fy
Step-4: Calculate Mp and Mr:
Mp=ZxFy
Mr=(Fy-Fr)Sx
Step-5: Calculate Mn based on flange local buckling:
When p<r then Mn=Mp-(Mp-Mr)(-p)/(r-
p)Mp When p then Mn=Mp
So, Mn may be calculated.
Step-6: Calculate Mn based on web local buckling:
When p<r then Mn=Mp-(Mp-Mr)(-p)/(r-
p)Mp When p then Mn=Mp
So, Mn may be calculated.
Step-7: Calculate bMn when compression flange laterally supported:
Take lowest of the two values of Mn from step5 and step 6.
Calculate bMn where b=0.9
Now if, bMn Mu then section is satisfactory for bending moment.
Step-8: Design for shear strength requirement without stiffener:
Ultimate shear strength, vVn= v Cv(0.6 Fyw Aw)
Calculate,
h/tw
418/Fyw
523/Fyw
(i) If h/tw 418/Fyw , then Cv= 1
(ii) If 418/Fyw< h/tw 523/Fyw ,then Cv=418/{(h/tw)Fyw}
2
(iii) If h/tw > 523/Fyw , then Cv=2,20,000/{(h/tw) Fyw}
So, calculate value of Cv regarding above conditions and then calculate vVn.
Now if, VVn Vu then section is satisfactory for shear without stiffener.
Step-9: Strength check for combined bending and shear:
When Mu/(bMn )+0.625{Vu/(vVn)} 1.375 then section is satisfactory
without
stiffener.
Step-10: Welding design for flange to web connection:
Assume, process of welding is SMAW process.
Select minimum weld size "amin"
Calculate amax.eff. =(0.707Fut1)/FEXX
Shear flow = (VuQ)/Ix
Equating the strength of the fillet to shear flow, 2a(0.707)(0.6FEXX)= (VuQ)/Ix ; which
gives required fillet weld size "a" to be
amax.eff.
Now decide weld size, electrode specification and recommend to provide.
Step-11: Pre-composite deflection check:
Calculate pre-composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Deflection due to concrete plus self weight to be L/360 or 1 inch (use unfactored
load).
Step-12: Composite deflection check:
Calculate composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Defection due to unfactored live load to be L/360 or 1 inch (considering
50% unfactored live load).
A.1.1.2 Laterally Unsupported Beam Design

Given data:
Ultimate moment, Mu
Ultimate shear, Vu
Unsupported length of compression flange KLb
Built-up section.
Yield strength of flange, Fyf
Yield strength of web, Fyw
Yield strength of welding, FEXX
Lateral supports are adequately stiff and braced.
Residual stress, Fr
Modulus of elasticity, E
Moment gradient, Cb
Step-1: Section selection: Select a trial section.
Step-2: Calculate section properties:
Calculate,
A=Gross cross sectional area.
Ix =Moment of inertia of I-section about strong axis.
Sx= Ix /C= Elastic section modulus about strong axis.
Iy =Moment of inertia of I-section about weak axis.
ry=(Iy/A)= Radius of gyration about weak axis.
3
J =(bt )/3 = Torsional constant.
2
Cw= (Iyh )/4 = Warping constant.
G= E/{2(1+)} =Modulus of
rigidity. X1= (/Sx){(EGJA)/2}
2
X2=(4Cw/Iy){Sx/(GJ)}
Zx =Plastic modulus about strong axis.
Step-3: Check flange and web local buckling limit state:
For flange:
Calculate,
Kc= 4/( h/tw) to be 0.35 kc0.763
=bf/2tf
p= 65/ Fyf
 r=141/(Fy-10) for rolled I-shaped section.
r=162/{(Fyf -16.5)/Kc} for welded I-shaped
section. For web:
Calculate,
=h/tw
p= 640/Fy
r=970/Fy
Step-4: Calculate Mp and Mr:
Mp=ZxFy
Mr=(Fy-Fr)Sx
Step-5: Calculate Mn based on flange local buckling:
When p<r then Mn=Mp-(Mp-Mr)(-p)/(r-
p)Mp When p then Mn=Mp
So, Mn may be calculated.
Step-6: Calculate Mn based on web local buckling:
When p<r then Mn=Mp-(Mp-Mr)(-p)/(r-
p)Mp When p then Mn=Mp
So, Mn may be calculated.
Step-7: Calculate Mn from lateral torsional buckling limit state:
Calculate,
LP=300 ry/Fyf
Lr={ryX1/(Fy-Fr)}[1+{1+X2(Fy-Fr)2}]
Lb= unsupported length of beam.
Moment gradient Cb=(12.5Mmax)/(2.5Mmax+3MA+4MB+3MC)
When LbLp then Mn=Mp
When Lp<LbLr then Mn= Cb{Mp-(Mp-Mr)(Lb-Lp)/(Lr-Lp)}Mp
When Lb>Lr then Mn=Mcr, where McrCbMrMp
2 2
Mcr={(CbSxX12)/(Lb/ry)}[(1+X1 X2)/{2(Lb/ry) }]
So, Mn may be calculated from above conditions.
Step-8: Calculate bMn when compression flange laterally unsupported:
Take lowest of the three values of Mn from step5, 6 and 7.
Calculate bMn where b=0.9
Now if, bMn Mu then section is satisfactory for bending moment.
Step-9: Design for shear strength requirement without stiffener:
Ultimate shear strength, vVn= v Cv(0.6 Fyw Aw)
 Calculate,
h/tw
418/Fyw
523/Fyw
(i) If h/tw 418/Fyw , then Cv= 1
(ii) If 418/Fyw< h/tw 523/Fyw ,then Cv=418/{(h/tw)Fyw}
2
(iii) If h/tw > 523/Fyw , then Cv=2,20,000/{(h/tw) Fyw}
So, calculate value of Cv regarding above conditions and then calculate vVn.
Now if, VVn Vu then section is satisfactory for shear without stiffener.
Step-10: Strength check for combined bending and shear:
When Mu/(bMn) +0.625{Vu/(vVn)} 1.375 then section is satisfactory
without
stiffener.
Step-11: Welding design for flange to web connection:
Assume, process of welding is SMAW process.
Select minimum weld size "amin"
Calculate amax.eff.=(0.707Fut1)/FEXX
Shear flow = (VuQ)/Ix
Equating the strength of the fillet to shear flow, 2a(0.707)(0.6FEXX)= (VuQ)/Ix ; which
gives required fillet weld size "a" to be
amax.eff.
Now decide weld size, electrode specification and recommend to provide.
Step-12: Pre-composite deflection check:
Calculate pre-composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Deflection due to concrete plus self weight to be L/360 or 1 inch (use unfactored
load).
Step-13: Composite deflection check:
Calculate composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Defection due to unfactored live load to be L/360 or 1 inch(considering
50% unfactored live load).

A.1.1.3 Plate Girder and Hybrid Girder Design

Given data:
Ultimate moment, Mu
Ultimate shear, Vu
Unsupported length of compression flange KLb
Modulus of elasticity, E
 Yield strength of flange, Fyf
Yield strength of web, Fyw
Yield strength of welding, FEXX
Moment gradient, Cb
Lateral supports are adequately stiff and braced.
Step-1: Section selection: Select a trial section. Typically, flange width is 20% to30%
of depth.
Step-2: Depth check:
Calculate w= h/tw
Maximum h/tw=14000/{Fyw(Fyw+16.5)} when a/h>1.5
Maximum h/tw=2000/Fyw when a/h1.5
Maximum h/tw=970/Fcr when Fcr=Fyf (bend buckling limit state of web).
Step-3: Optimum depth calculation:
3
h= {3(required Mn)w/(2RPG Fcr)} where Fcr=0.96Fyf assumed.
Step-4: Determination of moment strength of trial section:
Fcr from lateral torsional buckling limit state:
rT={Ifc/(Afc+Awc/3)}
=Lb/rT
p=300/Fyf
r=756/Fyf
When, p , then Fcr=Fyf
When, p< r , then Fcr=CbFyf{1-0.5(-p)/(r-p)} Fyf
Moment gradient Cb=(12.5Mmax)/(2.5Mmax+3MA+4MB+3MC)
2
When >r , then Fcr=286000Cb/(Lb/rT)
So calculate value of Fcr.
Fcr from flange local buckling limit state:
Kc= 4/ ( h/tw) to be 0.35 kc0.763
=bf/2tf
p=65/Fyf
r=230/(Fyf/Kc)
When, p , then Fcr=Fyf
When, p< r , then Fcr=Fyf{1-0.5(-p)/(r-p)} Fyf
2
When >r , then Fcr=26200Kc/(bf/2tf)
So calculate value of Fcr.
Strength reduction from web bend buckling (when h/tw> 970/Fyw):
 Final value of Fcr is the lowest value calculated above from LTB and FLB limit state.
Calculate w= h/tw
Maximum h/tw=970/Fcr when Fcr=Fyf (bend buckling limit state of web)
ar=Aw/Af
RPG=1-{ar/(1200+300ar)}(h/tw -970/Fcr)1
Final moment strength:
Calculate Ix then Sx
Calculate bMn =bFcrSxRPG
Now if, bMn Mu then section is satisfactory for bending moment.
Step-5: Moment strength for hybrid girder:
m=Fyw/Fyf
3
Re={12+ar(3m-m )}/(12+2ar) 1
bMn =bFcrSxRPGRe
Now if, bMn Mu then section is satisfactory for bending moment.
Step-6: Design for shear strength requirement:
Check whether intermediate transverse stiffener is required or not:
Ultimate shear strength, vVn= v Cv(0.6 Fyw Aw)
Calculate,
h/tw
418/Fyw
523/Fyw
(i) If h/tw 418/Fyw , then Cv= 1
(ii) If 418/Fyw< h/tw 523/Fyw ,then Cv=418/{(h/tw)Fyw}
2
(iii) If h/tw > 523/Fyw , then Cv=2,20,000/{(h/tw) Fyw}
So, calculate value of Cv regarding above conditions and then calculate vVn.
Now if, vVn Vu then section is satisfactory for shear and transverse stiffener is
not required.
If, h/tw 260 then transverse stiffener is not required.
Strength check for combined bending and shear:
When Mu/(bMn)+0.625{Vu/(vVn)} 1.375 then section is satisfactory, stiffener
is not required.
Step-7: Design of transverse stiffener spacing:

A. Without considering tension field action at end panel:

Without moment:
Vn= Cv(0.6 Fyw Aw)
Calculate required Cv from above equation.
2
When Cv 0.8 then Cv=44000Kv/{(h/tw) Fyw }
When Cv> 0.8 then Cv={187/(h/tw)}(Kv/Fyw)
Calculate required Kv from above calculations.
2
Kv=5 +5/(a/h)
So calculate value of "a" from above equation.
2
Check a/h {260/(h/tw)} 3 ; then stiffener spacing "a" is satisfactory.
With moment:
Check whether Mu/(bMn) 0.75 then combined strength check is not
required. If combined strength check is required then,
Mu/(bMn)+0.625{Vu/(vVn)} 1.375 must be
satisfied. So, required vVn to be calculated from above
equation. Select a trial value of stiffener spacing "a".
2
So, Kv= 5 +5/(a/h)
2
Assume Cv 0.8 then Cv=44000Kv/{(h/tw) Fyw
} Assume Cv> 0.8 then Cv={187/
(h/tw)}(Kv/Fyw)
So, from above conditions take calculated value of Cv 1
So, ultimate shear strength vVn= v Cv(0.6 Fyw Aw)
If calculated vVn required vVn then stiffener spacing is satisfactory.
2
Check, if a/h {260/(h/tw)} 3 ; then stifener spacing "a" satisfies.

B. Considering tension field action from 2nd. panel:

Without moment:
Calculate shear Vu2 at panel 2 (use this design step for 3rd, 4th,5th etc. internal panels)
Select a trial value of stiffener spacing "a"
2
So, Kv= 5 +5/(a/h)
Assume Cv 0.8 then Cv=44000Kv/
2
{(h/tw) Fyw} Assume Cv> 0.8 then Cv={187/
(h/tw)}(Kv/Fyw) So, take calculated value of Cv
1
2
So, ultimate shear strength vVn=v(0.6Fyw Aw)[Cv+(1-Cv)/{1.15(1+(a/h) )}]
 If calculated vVn Vu then stiffener spacing is satisfactory.
2
Check, if a/h {260/(h/tw)} 3 ; then stifener spacing "a" satisfies.
With moment:
Calculate shear Vu2 at panel 2 (use this design step for 3rd, 4th, 5th
etc. internal panels also.)
Calculate ultimate moment Mu2 at panel 2 (use this design step for 3rd, 4th, 5th
etc. internal panels also.)
Check, if Mu2/(bMn) 0.75 then combined strength check is not required.
If combined strength check is required then, Mu2/(bMn)
+0.625{Vu2/(vVn)} 1.375 must be satisfied. So,
required vVn to be calculated from above equation.
Select a trial value of stiffener spacing "a".
2
So, Kv= 5 +5/(a/h)
2
Assume Cv 0.8 then Cv=44000Kv/{(h/tw) Fyw}
Assume Cv> 0.8 then Cv={187/(h/tw)}(Kv/Fyw)
So, from above conditions take calculated value of Cv 1
So, ultimate shear strength vVn=v(0.6Fyw Aw)[Cv+(1-Cv)/{1.15(1+
2
(a/h) )}] If calculated vVn required vVn then stiffener spacing is
satisfactory.
2
Check, if a/h {260/(h/tw)} 3 ; then stifener spacing "a" satisfies.

Step-8: Design of transverse stiffener size:

D=2.4 for single plate stiffener and 1 for pair of plate stiffener.
Cv=(take value from step 6 which is calculated without stiffener)
Vu=(take from shear force diagram)
vVn=(take from step 7 which is calculated and applicable)
a=(take from step 7 which is provided and applicable)
Strength requirement
2
Strength requirement, Ast=(Fyw/Fyst){0.15DAw(1-Cv)(Vu/vVn)-18tw }
Stiffness requirement:
2
J=2.5/(a/h) -2 0.5
3
Required IstJatw
Local buckling:
bst/tst to be r=95/Fyst then satisfactory.
Step-9: Connection of intermediate stiffener with web and flange :
Welding connection design to be performed.
 Provide 4tw-6tw gap between transverse stiffener and compression flange.
Step-10: Welding design for flange to web connection:
Assume, process of welding is SMAW process.
Select minimum weld size "amin"
Calculate amax.eff. =(0.707Fut1)/FEXX
Shear flow = (VuQ)/Ix
Equating the strength of the fillet to shear flow, 2a(0.707)(0.6FEXX)= (VuQ)/Ix ; which
gives required fillet weld size "a" to be amax.eff.
Now decide weld size, electrode specification and recommend to provide.
Step-11: Pre-composite deflection check:
Calculate pre-composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Deflection due to concrete plus self weight to be L/360 or 1 inch
(use un-factored load).
Step-12: Composite deflection check:
Calculate composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Deflection due to un-factored live load to be L/360 or 1 inch(considering
50% un-factored live load).

A.1.1.4 Beam-Column Member Design for Braced Frame

Given data:
Ultimate axial load, Pu=Pux=Puy
No translation ultimate moment, Mntx=M2x
No translation ultimate moment, Mnty=M2y
Unsupported length of column, Lx
Unsupported length of column, Ly
Yield strength, Fy
Moment gradient, Cbx
Moment gradient, Cby
Assumed value of Kx (for braced frame)
Modulus of elasticity, E
Assumed value of Ky (for braced frame)
Residual stress, Fr
Step-1: Calculate K value: Assume K=1 for braced frame as side sway prevented.
Step-2: Section selection: Select a trial section.
Step-3: Calculate section properties:
Calculate,
Ag=Gross cross sectional area.
Ix =Moment of inertia of I-section about strong axis.
Sx= Ix /C= Elastic section modulus about strong axis.
Sy= Iy /C= Elastic section modulus about weak axis.
Iy= Moment of inertia of I-section about weak axis.
rx=(Ix/Ag)= Radius of gyration about strong axis.
ry=(Iy/Ag)= Radius of gyration about weak axis.
3
J =(bt )/3= Torsional constant.
2
Cw= (Iyh )/4= Warping constant.
G= E/{2(1+)}=Modulus of
rigidity. X1= (/Sx){(EGJA)/2}
2
X2=(4Cw/Iy){Sx/(GJ)}
Zx=Plastic modulus about strong axis.
Zy=Plastic modulus about weak axis.
Step-4: Calculation for column action:

Calculation of slenderness parameter:

Calculate KxLx/rx and KyLy/ry
Take largest of the above two values for calculation.
2
Now, slenderness parameter c=(KL/r){Fy/( E)}
When c 1.5 then short column and when c > 1.5 then long column.
Calculation of reduction factor for flange local buckling:
Calculate,
r = 95/Fy
=bf/2tf
When >r then reduction factor Qs is applicable and smaller than 1.
Kc= 4/ ( h/tw) to be 0.35 kc0.763
When 109/(Fy/Kc) < < 200/(Fy/Kc) then,
Qs=1.415-0.0038 (Fy/Kc)
Calculation of reduction factor for web local buckling:
For first trial, take value of FcrFy
 =h/tw
r=253/Fy= 253/Fcr
Only if >r then reduction factor Qa is applicable and smaller than
1. For first trial assume Qa=1
So, first trial value of Q=QsQa
Now calculate trial cQ
(Qc2)
When cQ1.5 then cFcr=c{0.658 }Qfy (short column equation)
2
For cQ>1.5 then cFcr=c(0.877/ c )F y
(long column equation)
So, calculate cFcr=f from above condition.
bE=(326/f)[1-57.2/{(h/tw)f}]tw
So, Qa= Aeff/Agross
So, Q= QsQa
nd
Now 2 trial with the calculated value of Fcr and Qa may be performed for
more accuracy.
Determination of nominal strength as column:
Use calculated value of Fcr and Qa
Now calculate, cPn= cFcrAg
Step-5: Calculation for beam action:

Check flange compactness:

Section to be compact. Calculate,
=bf/2tf
p=65/Fy
If p then the section is compact.
Check web compactness:
Calculate Pu/bPy
When Pu/bPy0.125 then p=(640/Fy)(1-2.75Pu/bPy)
When Pu/bPy> 0.125 then p=(191/Fy)(2.33-Pu/bPy) 253/Fy
Calculate p from above conditions.
=h/tw
If p then the section is compact.
Calculate Mnx and Mny:
Calculate,
Mpx=ZxFy
Mrx=(Fy-Fr)Sx
 LPx=300 ry /Fyf
Lrx={ryX1/(Fy-Fr)}[1+{1+X2(Fy-
2
Fr) }] Lbx=unsupported length as beam.
When LbxLpx then Mnx=Mpx
When Lpx<LbxLrx then Mnx= Cbx{Mpx-(Mpx-Mrx)(Lbx-Lpx)/(Lrx-
Lpx)}Mpx When Lbx>Lrx then Mnx=Mcrx, where McrxCbxMrxMpx
2 2
Mcrx={(CbxSxX12)/(Lbx/ry)}[(1+X1 X2)/{2(Lbx/ry) }]
So Mnx may be calculated from above conditions.

Again, Mpy=FyZy
Mny= Mpy when flange is compact.
Calculate magnified moment Mux and Muy for braced frame:
Compute Cmx & Cmy without transverse loading:
Cmx=0.6-0.4M1X/M2X
CmY=0.6-0.4M1Y/M2Y
For single curvature, M1x/M2x and M1y/M2y is negative and for double
curvature, positive.
Now,
2 2
Pe1x=( EAg)/( KxLx/rx )
B1x= Cmx/(1-Pux/pe1x)
B1x to be taken always 1
2 2
Pe1y=( EAg)/( KyLy/ry )
B1y= Cmy/(1-Puy/pe1y) 1
Now calculate,
Mux= B1XMntx
Muy= B1yMnty
Step-6: Unity check:
Pu/cPn
Pu/cPn 0.2 then use Pu/cPn+ 8/9(Mux/bMnx+ Muy/bMny) 1
Pu/cPn < 0.2 then use Pu/2cPn+( Mux/bMnx+ Muy/bMny) 1
Step-7: Story drift check:
Check using computer analysis.
A.1.2 Design of Composite Beam/Girder as per AISC LRFD 2010

Given data:
Built-up I-section to be used with un-shored construction.
Lateral supports are adequately stiff and braced.
Unsupported length of compression flange =KLb
Yield strength of flange=Fyf
Yield strength of web=Fyw
Residual stress=Fr
Modulus of elasticity =Es
Moment gradient=Cb
Tensile strength of plate=Fu
No additional weight for concrete ponding to be considered.
Pre-composite construction live load 25 psf.
Ultimate pre-composite positive moment =+Mu
Ultimate pre-composite negative moment =-Mu
Ultimate composite positive moment=+Mu (com)
Ultimate composite negative moment= -Mu (com)
Ultimate shear=Vu
Length of beam=L
Spacing of beam at left=s1
Spacing of beam at right=s2
For exterior beam, center to slab edge distance.
For ASTM A108 stud anchor, Fu
Slab reinforcement in positive zone=As
Slab reinforcement in negative zone =Asr
Yield strength of reinforcement =Fyr
Reduction factor for void of slab up to rib level.
Step-1: Applied loads: AISC design guide 3 recommends an additional 10% of the nominal
slab weight to be applied for concrete ponding. For pre-composite construction, live load 25
psf. to be applied for concrete transport and placement by hose as per ASCE 2002.
Step-2: Check composite deck and anchor requirements:
Deck perpendicular/parallel to beam.
ASTM A108 stud anchors tensile strength, Fu=65 ksi.
 Use steel headed stud anchors inch or less in diameter.
Concrete strength to be, 3ksi fc 10 ksi.
Steel headed stud anchors, after installation, shall extend not less than 1.5 inch above
the top of the steel deck.
Minimum stud anchor length to be equal to (rib height + 1.5")
Minimum length of stud anchors = 4dsa where, dsa= stud anchor diameter.
There shall be at least inch of specified concrete cover above the headed stud anchor.
Burn off length of stud anchor may be used 3/8".
Steel headed stud anchor diameter to be smaller than or equal to 2.5 times flange
thickness of beam.
Rib height of steel decking must not be greater than 3 inch.
Rib width of steel decking must be greater than or equal to 2 inch.
Steel deck shall be anchored to all supporting members at a spacing not to exceed 18 in.
Step-3: Design for pre-composite condition:
It is assumed that deck perpendicular to beam provide adequate bracing for
compression flange during construction. So lateral torsional buckling is prevented.
Assume a compact section.
Check compactness (AISC 2010):
For flange: =bf/2tf , p= 0.38(E/Fy)
Check if p then the section is compact for flange.
For web: =h/tw , p= 3.76(E/Fy)
Check if p then the section is compact for web.
So, pre-composite positive moment, Mu = bMn=bFyZx
Calculate Zx . Now select a section so that Zx exceeds this value.
When deck parallel to beam/girder then secondary beam position may be considered
as braced location for pre-composite condition. Then lateral tortional buckling limit
state must be investigated.

Step-4: Pre-composite deflection:

Calculate pre-composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Defection due to concrete plus self weight to be L/360 or 1 inch (use un-factored
load). If deflection does not satisfy then increase member size or induce camber into the
member.
Use 80% of calculated deflection value as chamber.
Step-5: Design for composite condition:
Determine effective width:
For interior beam:
b=L/4
b=(S1+S2)/2
Selected b= smaller of the above two value.
For exterior beam:
b=L/8 +slab edge distance.
b=S1/2 + slab edge distance.
Selected b= smaller of the above two value.
Step-6: Flexural strength calculation for composite action (plastic stress distribution):
A. When PNA within slab:
Concrete crushing, Cmax=0.85fc, Ac , here take effective area of concrete section whether
deck perpendicular/parallel to beam.
Steel yielding, Tmax=AsFy

a= AsFy/(0.85fc b) to be ts,eff.
Effective slab thickness, ts,eff. =ts-hr=total slab thickness-rib height of deck (for parallel
deck, effective slab thickness=total slab thickness-rib heightvoid ratio may be used)
Now calculate moment,
Mn = T(d/2 + ts -a/2)
bMn =0.85Mn
Now if, bMn composite positive moment, +Mu(com) then section is satisfactory for
bending moment.
B. When PNA within steel section:
Here, C=Qn
(i) When PNA is inside flange:
So, x=(AsFy-C)/(2bfFy) ; if x is smaller than or equal to flange thickness then PNA is
inside flange.
If x is greater than flange thickness then PNA is inside web.
(ii)When PNA is inside web:
Calculate, Cf=tfbfFy
So, x=(AsFy-C-2Cf)/(2twFy)
Calculate centroidal distance y1 of portion of steel beam in tension measured from
bottom of steel section.
Now, Qn=Cc=0.85fc ba

So, a =Qn/0.85fc b
Calculation of Mn (method-1):
When PNA within flange:
Mn1=Qn(d-y1+ts-a/2)
Mn2=Cf(d-y1-x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite positive moment, +Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.
When PNA within web:
Mn1=Qn(d-y1+ts-a/2)
Mn2=Cf(d-y1-tf/2)
Mn3=Cw(d-y1-tf -x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2+Mn3
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite positive moment, +Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.
Calculation of Mn (method-2):
When PNA within flange:
Mn1=Qn(ts-a/2+x/2)
Mn2=Py(d/2-x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite positive moment, +Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.

When PNA within web:

Mn1=Qn(ts-a/2+tf + x/2)
Mn2=2Cf(tf/2+ x/2)
Mn3=Py(d/2-tf -x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2+Mn3
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite positive moment, +Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.
Step-7: Flexural strength for composite action at support negative moment
(plastic stress distribution):
Tsr=AsrFyr
Cmax=AsFy
When Cmax exceeds Tmax then PNA is inside the steel section.
When PNA within flange:
x= Ts/(Fybf) where Ts=(Cmax-Tsr)/2
If x is smaller than or equal to flange thickness then PNA is inside flange.
If x is greater than flange thickness then PNA is inside web.
When PNA within web:
Tf=tfbfFy
So, x=(AsFy-Tsr-2Tf)/(2twFy)
Locate the centroid y1 of portion of steel beam in compression measured from
bottom of steel section.
Calculation of Mn:
When PNA within flange:
Mn1=Tsr(d-y1+ts-ts/2)
Mn2=Tf(d-y1-x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite negative moment, -Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.
When PNA within web:
Mn1=Tsr(d-y1+ts-ts/2)
Mn2=Tf(d-y1-tf/2)
Mn3=Tw(d-y1-tf -x/2)
Mn=Mn1+Mn2+Mn3
bMn =0.85Mn
So, if calculated value bMn composite negative moment, -Mu(com) then
section is satisfactory.
Similarly PNA within slab can also be analyzed.
Step-8: Design of stud anchor:

Stud anchor capacity, Qn=0.5Asa(f E ) R R A F
c c g p sa u

Calculate cross sectional area of stud anchor, Asa and Ec=Wc1.5fc'

 Number and spacing of stud anchor (for positive moment zone):

Cmax=0.85fc Ac
Tmax=AsFy
Max. spacing of stud connector=8ts,eff.
Minm. spacing of stud connector=6dsa
Minm. transverse spacing between anchor pairs=4dsa
Minm. Dist. of anchor to slab free edge along shear force=8 inch
Max. spacing of deck attachment=18 inch
Deck flute spacing=2Wr
m
Qn=(reduction factor){min ( Cmax , Tmax)}
Reduction factor= as required
Number of stud anchor=Qn/Qn (between zero & maximum bending moment).
Number and spacing of stud anchor (for negative moment zone):
Vnh= AsrFyr
Number of stud anchor=Vnh/Qn (between zero & maximum bending moment).
Step-9: Composite deflection check:
Calculate composite deflection from structural analysis by computer soft-ware.
Deflection due to un-factored live load to be L/360 or 1 inch(considering
50% un-factored live load).
Step-10: Available shear strength:
Beam should be assumed for available shear strength as a bare steel beam.
Step-11: Serviceability:
Vibration might need to be considered. See AISC design guide 11 for additional
information.

Special Cases:

Design for pre-composite condition ( non compact section): Use laterally supported/
unsupported beam design procedure.
Design for pre-composite condition (plate girder): Use plate girder design procedure.
Design for pre-composite condition (hybrid girder): Use hybrid girder design procedure.
Use elastic stress distribution method for non-compact beam, plate girder and hybrid
girder for composite design.
Flexural strength calculation (elastic stress distribution):
Elastic section properties of composite section:
Take effective width of slab according to design step 5 as above.
n=Es/Ec
Transformed width of slab (top portion) to be calculated.
Transformed width of slab (rib height portion) to be calculated for deck parallel to
beam/girder.
Computation of IX :
Calculate,
2
Ix= I0 + Ay
y1=Ay/A (C.G. of composite section above centroid of steel
2
section) Itr = Ix -Ay1
yt
ytop(steel beam)
yb
Sconc
Str
Computation of stresses for positive moment (ENA with in steel beam only):
Factored pre-composite positive moment= +Mup
Factored pre-composite negative moment =-Mup
Factored additional positive moment at composite action=+Muc
Factored additional negative moment at composite action=-Muc
fbot= Mup/(bSx)+ Muc/(bStr)
ftop= Mup/(bSx)+ (Mucytop) /(bItr)
fconc= Muc/(bnSconc) (concrete stress)
Computation of stresses may be computed for negative moment also by elastic
stress distribution.
A.1.3 Design of Connections for Steel Structure by AISC LRFD method

This topics deals with the design procedure of base plate, extended end plate moment
connection, simple shear connection and continuous connection. This design steps are
directly followed to design connections of steel and composite structure for the research
work.

A.1.3.1 Design of Base Plate and Anchor Bolt as per AISC LRFD 2005

Given data:
Ultimate axial compressive load=Pu
Ultimate moment= Mux
Ultimate moment=Muy (uni-axial moment is considered)
Ultimate base shear=Vu
Pedestal larger than base plate= a
Yield strength of base plate=Fy

Concrete strength=fc
Column flange width=bf
Column total depth=d
Extension of base plate beyond column size=x1 (minimum 3 inch)
Extension of base plate beyond column size=x2 (minimum may be 3 inch)
Tensile strength of anchor rod= Fu
Yield strength of anchor rod
Number of anchor rod
Dia. Of anchor rod
Length of anchor rod
Step-1: Determination of trial base plate size:
As per OSHA requirement, base plate size (NB) will be large enough for installation
of 4 anchor rods.
Base plate size,
N d+2x1
B bf + 2x2
Pedestal size,
L= N+2a
W=B+2a
Step-2: Determination of eccentricity e and ecritical:
e= Mux/Pu

fPmax=c(0.85fc )(A2/A1) where (A2 /A1 ) 2
qmax=fpmaxB
ecritical=N/2 - Pu /(2qmax) must be greater than or equal to e.

Step-3: Determination of bearing length and bearing pressure check:

Bearing length, Y=N-2e
Bearing pressure, q= Pu /Y must be smaller than or equal to qmax.

Step-4: Determination of minimum plate thickness:

For strong axis:
m=(N-0.95d)/2
fp=Pu /(BY)
Y must be greater than or equal to m
tp,req.= 1.5m(fp /Fy)
For week axis:
n=(B-0.8bf)/2
tp,req.= 1.5n(fp /Fy)
So select tp as the larger of the two value.
Step-5: Determination of anchor rod size:
If no anchor rod force exists then to be decided based on OSHA requirement and
practical considerations.
Use 4-3/4 inch dia. rods, ASTM F1554, grade 36, rod length 12 inch.
Step-6: Anchor rod shear strength check :
Calculate cross sectional area of anchor rod=Ab
Strength per anchor rod, Rn=(0.4Fu)Ab when threads included.
Shear strength for all anchor rods= nos. of anchor rodRn
When shear strength is greater than or equal to Vu then design is satisfactory.
A.1.3.2 Design of 4E Extended End Plate Moment Connection
(AISC LRFD 2002)

Given data:
Cyclic/seismic detailing considered /not considered.
Unstiffened/stiffened end plate
Number of bolt at tension zone=4
Yield strength of end plate, Fyp
Tensile strength of end plate, Fup
Yield strength of column, Fyc
Tensile strength of column, Fuc
Yield strength of beam, Fyb
Tensile strength of beam, Fub
b
Strength of bolt, Fu
Strength of bolt, Ft
Ultimate shear, Vu
Ultimate moment at support, Mu
Ry (Ry=1.1 for Fyb=50 ksi and Ry=1.5 for Fyb=36 ksi)
Yield strength of stiffener, Fys
Modulus of elasticity E
Connection configuration:
Plate width, bp (bf + 1 inch)
Gage distance, g
Internal pitch Pfi
External pitch Pfo
Vertical edge dist. of outer hole, de
Dia. of bolt, db
Stiffener width, hst (if reqd.)
Stiffener length, Lst (if reqd.)
Stiffener thickness, ts (if reqd.)
Dia. of hole (db+1/16 inch)
Straight part of stiffener=(1" minimum)
Col. flange stiffener, ts (if req.)
Beam section:
Flange width, bfb
 Flange thickness, tfb
Beam depth, dbeam
Web thickness, twb
Web width, hb
Column section:
Flange width, bfc
Flange thickness, tfc
Beam depth, dc
Web thickness, twc
Web width, hc
Specification of material:
For ASTM A992 steel, Fy=50 ksi and Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A572 grade 50 steel, Fy=50 ksi Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A490 bolts, Fu=150 ksi, Ft=113 ksi
For ASTM A325 bolts, Fu=120ksi, Ft=90 ksi

Beam side design:

Step-1: Determination of connection design moment:
For seismic provisions:
Calculate Zxb for beam.
Connection design moment, Mpc= 1.1RyFybZxb as per AISC seismic provisions
2002, where Ry=1.1 for Fyb=50 ksi and Ry=1.5 for Fyb=36 ksi)
Location of plastic hinge, Lp =(minimum of db /2 and 3bfb) for unstiffened connection.
Moment at face of column, Muc=Mpc+VuLP (unstiffened connection design moment)
Lp=Lst + tp (for stiffened connection)
Moment at face of column, Muc=Mpc+VuLP (unstiffened connection design moment)
For low seismic provision:
bMP=bZxb Fyb
Muc=ultimate moment at support to be bMP
Step-2: Calculate connection configurations:
Using selected connection geometric configuration we get,
h0= dbeam +Pfo -tfb /2
h1= dbeam -Pfi -1.5tfb
Step-3: Determine required bolt diameter:
db,required=[2Muc/{Ft(h0+h1)}]
Step-4: Calculate no prying moment:
Bolt tensile strength, Pt=FtAb
Prying moment, Mnp=2Pt(h0+h1)
Step-5: Determine required end plate thickness:
For un-stiffened end plate:
End plate yield line parameter,
S=1/2(bpg) if Pfi > S then use Pfi =S
Yp=(bp /2){h1(1/Pfi + 1/s) +h0(1/Pfo) -1/2}+ 2/g{h1(Pfi+S)}
tp,required= {(1.11Mnp)/(bFypYp)}
For stiffened end plate:
S=1/2(bpg) if Pfi > S then use Pfi =S
de=vertical edge distance for outside bolt holes.
When de < S then
YP= (bp /2)[h1(1/Pfi + 1/s) +h0{1/Pfo +1/(2s)}]+ 2/g{h1(Pfi+S)+h0(de+Pfo)}
When de > S then
YP= (bp /2){h1(1/Pfi + 1/s) +h0(1/Pfo +1/s)}+ 2/g{h1(Pfi+S)+h0(s+Pfo)}
tp,required= {(1.11Mnp)/(bFypYp)}
Step-6: Calculate factored beam flange force:
Ffu=Muc /(dbeam -tfb)
Step-7: Check shear rupture of extended portion of end plate:
An={bp-2(db+1/8)}tp
Rn=0.75(0.6Fup)An
Ffu /2 to be smaller than equal to Rn
Step-8: Check shear yielding of extended portion of end plate:
Rn=0.9(0.6Fyp)bptp
Ffu /2 to be smaller than equal to Rn
Step-9: Stiffener design (if required):
ts,required = twb(Fyb/Fys)
r= 0.56(E/Fys)
Local buckling check: hst /tst to be smaller than equal to r
Step-10: Check compression bolts shear rupture strength:
b
Bolt shear rupture strength, Rn=nbFvAb=nb(0.4Fu )Ab
Vu to be smaller than or equal to Rn and then satisfactory.
Step-11: Check compression bolts bearing/tear out strength:
For end plate:
Calculate bearing strength per bolt=2.4dbtpFup
Tearing out outer bolt: calculate Lc and then tear out strength, Rn,inner =1.2 LCtpFup
Capacity per bolt=smaller of the bearing strength and tearing strength.
By inspection, bearing controls for the inner bolts.
Total strength for 4 bolts={2(capacity per inner bolt) +2(capacity per outer bolt)},
to be Vu
For column flange:
Calculate bearing strength per bolt=2.4dbtfcFuc
Total strength for 4 bolts=4Rn to be Vu
Step-12: Design welds:
Beam flanges to end plate weld connection , beam web to end plate weld
connection and weld capacity for applied shear to be designed and checked.

Column side design:

Step-13: Check column flange for flexural yielding:
Calculate, S=1/2(bfcg)
C=Pfo + tfb + Pfi
2
Calculate, Yc= (bfc /2){h1(1/s) +h0(1/s)}+ 2/g{h1(S+3C/4)+h0(s+C/4)+C /2}+g/2
Required unstiffened column flange thickness:
tfc,required ={(1.11Mnp /(bFycYc)} to be column flange thickness; otherwise
add flange stiffeners.
Stiffener:
Assume stiffener plate thickness, ts
Calculate, Pso=Psi=(C-ts)/2
For stiffened column flange, calculate Yc= (bfc /2){h1(1/s+1/Psi) +h0(1/s+1/Pso)}+
2/g{h1(S+ Psi)+h0(s+ Pso)}
So reduced column flange thickness due to col. flange stiffener,
tfc,required ={(1.11Mnp /(bFycYc)} to be column flange
thickness; otherwise increase column flange thickness.
Step-14: Calculate strength of un-stiffened column flange to determine stiffener design force:
Calculate Mcf = bFycYctfc2
So, Rn=Mcf /(db-tfb) if Fuf then stiffener is not required.
Step-15: Calculate local web yielding strength:
Rn=Ct (6kc +N +2tp)Fyctwc and if Rn Fuf then stiffener is not required.
Step-16: Calculate web buckling strength:
Rn={24twc3 (Efyc)}/h and if Rn Fuf then stiffener is not required.
Step-17: Web crippling strength:
Rn=0.80twc2 [1+3(N/dc)(twc/tfc)1.5](E Fyctfc/twc) and if Rn Fuf then
stiffener is not required.
Step-18: Determine stiffener design force:
Fcu=Ffu-min Rn from above four steps.
Step-19: Stiffener design and panel zone checks: Separate design methods required.

A.1.3.3 Design of Simple Shear Connections (AISC LRFD 1993)

Given data:
Ultimate shear at support, Vu

Ultimate moment at support, Mu=near to zero.

Yield strength of beam, Fyb
Tensile strength of beam, Fub
b
Strength of bolt,Fu
Strength of bolt, Ft
Yield strength of clip plate, Fyp
Tensile strength of clip plate, Fup
Connection configuration
Bearing type connection.
Threads of bolts included in shear plane.
Two or more bolt in a line of force.
Number of bolt, m
Dia. of bolt, db
Bolt spacing, s (minimum 3db)
Value of Lc(minimum 1.5db)
Clip plate thickness, tp
Max. clip plate depth, dp
Min. clip plate width, bp
 Dia. of bolt hole (db+1/16 inch)
Bolt center to web/clip plate end distance
Minimum clip plate depth, dp,min Number
of row of bolt=1(usually) Minimum
eccentricity for clip moment, e Beam
section:
Flange width, bfb
Flange thickness,tfb
Beam depth, dbeam
Web thickness, twb
Column section:
Flange width, bfc
Flange thickness,tfc
Beam depth, dc
Web thickness, twc
Specification of material:
For ASTM A992 steel, Fy=50 ksi and Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A572 grade 50 steel, Fy=50 ksi Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A490 bolts, Fu=150 ksi, Ft=113 ksi
For ASTM A325 bolts, Fu=120ksi, Ft=90 ksi

Design for shear:

Step-1:Connection design with beam web:
Number of bolt regarding beam web:
Check bolt spacing ,S to be 3db
External bolt center to plate edge distance, Lc to be 1.5db
Assume two or more bolt in a line of force.
Assume threads of bolts included in shear plane.
Now calculate, Rn (bearing)=(2.4Fub)dbtwb
b
Rn (single shear)=(0.4Fu )Ab
So design strength per bolt is the minimum of the two values obtained
from bearing and single shear.
No of bolt required, m =Vu /design strength per bolt.
Check block shear on beam web:
Check, FuAnt 0.6FuAnv or not.
 Calculate, Agv , Anv , Agt , Ant and then
FuAnt and 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FuAnv+FyAgt) when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FyAgv+FuAnt) when FuAnt 0.6FuAnv
Now, calculate applicable Tn and compare with ultimate shear Vu
Step-2: Clip plate design:
mRn (bearing)=m(2.4Fup)dbtclip (plate bearing) must be Vu
(0.6Fup)Anv= (plate shear rupture) must be Vu
(0.6Fy)Agv= (plate gross shear yielding) must be
Vu Check block shear on clip plate:
Check, FuAnt 0.6FuAnv or not.
Calculate Agv , Anv , Agt , Ant and then
FuAnt and 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FuAnv+FyAgt) when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FyAgv+FuAnt) when FuAnt 0.6FuAnv
Now, calculate applicable Tn and compare with ultimate shear Vu
Flexural stress at clip plate:
Calculate Mu,clip
Mn,clip=FySx to be greater than equal to Mu,clip
Clip local buckling limit state:
Calculate b/t
95/Fy must be greater than b/t
Step-3: Connection design of clip with girder web:
Welding design for clip with girder web and flange connection:
Assume ,process of welding is SMAW process.
Select minimum weld size "amin"
Calculate amax.eff.=(0.707Fut1)/FEXX
Shear flow = Vu/Aclip
Equating the strength of the fillet to shear flow, 2a(0.707)(0.6FEXX)=Vu/Aclip;
which gives required fillet weld size "a" to be amax.eff.
Now decide weld size, electrode specification and recommend to provide.
Clip may be welded with flange of girder.
Combined stress check at welding to be performed.
A.1.3.4 Continuous Beam to Beam and Beam to Column Web Connection
Design (AISC LRFD 1993)

Given data:
Ultimate shear at support, Vu
Ultimate moment at support, Mu
Yield strength of beam, Fyb
Tensile strength of beam, Fub
b
Strength of clip bolt, Fu
Strength of clip bolt, Ft
Yield st. of clip plate, Fyp
Tensile strength of clip plate, Fup
Yield strength of cover plate, Fyc
Tensile strength of cover plate, Fuc
b
Strength of cover pl. bolt, Fu
Strength of cover plate bolt,Ft
Connection configuration for shear
Bearing type connection.
Threads of bolts included in shear plane.
Two or more bolt in a line of force.
Number of bolt, m
Dia. of bolt, db
Bolt spacing, s (minimum3db)
Value of Lc (minimum 1.5db)
Clip plate thickness, tp
Max. clip plate depth, dp
Min. clip plate width, bp
Dia. of bolt hole (db+1/16 inch)
Bolt center to web/clip plate end dist.
Minimum clip plate depth, dp,min
Number of row of bolt=1 (usually)
Minm. eccentricity for clip moment, e
Connection configuration for moment
Bearing type connection.
Threads of bolts included in shear plane.
 Two or more bolt in a line of force.
Number of bolt, m
Dia. of bolt, db
Bolt spacing, s (minimum3db)
Value of Lc(minimum 1.5db)
Cover plate thickness, tp(equal to tfb)
Min. cover plate length, Lp
Min. cover plate width, bp
Dia. of bolt hole (db+1/16 inch)
Bolt center to beam web clear distance to be practicable.
Number of row of bolt = 2 (usually).
Beam section:
Flange width, bfb
Fl. thickness, tfb
Beam depth, dbeam
Web thickness, twb
Column section:
Flange width, bfc
Flange thichness,tfc
Beam depth, dc Web
thickness, twc Specification
of material:
For ASTM A992 steel, Fy=50 ksi and Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A572 grade 50 steel, Fy=50 ksi Fu= 65 ksi
For ASTM A490 bolts, Fu=150 ksi, Ft= 113 ksi
For ASTM A325 bolts, Fu=120ksi, Ft=90 ksi

Design of clip for shear:

Step-1: Connection design with beam web:
Number of bolt regarding beam web:
Check bolt spacing ,S to be 3db
External bolt center to plate edge distance, Lc to be 1.5db
Assume two or more bolt in a line of force.
Assume threads of bolts included in shear plane.
Now calculate, Rn (bearing)=(2.4Fub)dbtwb
 b
Rn (single shear)=(0.4Fu )Ab
So design strength per bolt is the minimum of the two values obtained from
bearing and single shear.
No of bolt required, m =Vu /design strength per bolt
Check block shear on beam web:
Check, FuAnt 0.6FuAnv or not.
Calculate, Agv , Anv , Agt , Ant and then
FuAnt and 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FuAnv+FyAgt) when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FyAgv+FuAnt) when FuAnt 0.6FuAnv
Now, calculate applicable Tn and compare with ultimate shear Vu
Step-2: Clip plate design:
mRn (bearing)=m(2.4Fup)dbtclip (plate bearing) must be Vu
(0.6Fup)Anv= (plate shear rupture) must be Vu
(0.6Fy)Agv= (plate gross shear yielding) must be
Vu Check block shear on clip plate:
Check, FuAnt 0.6FuAnv or not.
Calculate Agv , Anv , Agt , Ant and then
FuAnt and 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FuAnv+FyAgt) when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FyAgv+FuAnt) when FuAnt 0.6FuAnv
Now, calculate applicable Tn and compare with ultimate shear Vu
Flexural stress at clip:
Calculate Mu,clip
Mn,clip=FySx to be greater than equal to Mu,clip
Clip local buckling limit state:
Calculate b/t
95/Fy must be b/t
Step-3: Connection design of clip with girder web:
Welding design for clip with girder web and flange connection:
Assume, process of welding is SMAW process.
Select minm. weld size "amin"
Calculate amax.eff.=(0.707Fut1)/FEXX
Shear flow = Vu/Aclip
 Equating the strength of the fillet to shear flow, 2a(0.707)(0.6FEXX)=Vu/Aclip;
which gives required fllet weld size "a" to be amax.eff.
Now decide weld size,electrode specification and recommend to provide.
Clip may be welded to flange of girder.
Combined stress check at welding to be performed.

Design of cover plate for moment:

Step-1: Design bolt value:
Fuf=Mu/(dbeam-tfb)
mRn (bearing)=m(2.4Fuc)dbtp (plate bearing) must be greater than equal to Fuf
b
mRn (single shear)=m(0.4Fu )Ab (bolts shearing) must be greater than equal toFuf
Step-2: Block shear check for cover and joint plate:
Check, FuAnt 0.6FuAnv or not.
Calculate Agv , Anv , Agt , Ant and then
FuAnt and 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FuAnv+FyAgt) when FuAnt < 0.6FuAnv
Tn=0.75(0.6FyAgv+FuAnt) when FuAnt 0.6FuAnv
Now, calculate Tn and compare with ultimate shear equal to Fuf
Tn to be greater than or equal to Fuf
Step-3: Welding of joint plate with beam flange:
Use CJP groove weld with E70electrode.
Step-4: Joint plate and cover plate tension strength check:
Yield strength, tTn=tFyAg to be greater than or equal to Fuf
Fracture strength, tTn=tFuAe to be greater than or equaltoFuf
 Appendix-B

B.1 Design Loads

Both gravity loads and lateral loads are considered to design the selected building for four
types of structural system.

B.1.1 Gravity loads

Live load and dead load are gravity loads considered for the design of the building for the
intended design.

B.1.1.1 Design Live Loads

Live load considered to perform design work is given in Table B.1. Live loads are
considered as per BNBC 1993. Live load reduction factors also considered which is given in
Table B.2.

Table B.1 Design live loads

2
Occupancy or use Live load (kN/m )
Production area 6
Stair case and lobby 5
Toilet block 2
Office block 3
Light ware house block 6
Roof top 2
Movable partition load 1.2
Pre-composite construction live load 1.2

Table B.2 Live load reduction factor used as per BNBC 1993
Structural member Tributary area Reduction
(square meter) factor
Internal footing and 348 0.75
 ground floor column
External footing and 174 0.81
ground floor column
Corner footing and 115 0.92
ground floor column
Internal first floor 290 0.79
column
External first floor 145 0.84
column
Corner first floor 115 0.92
column

B.1.1.2 Dead Load Calculations

Dead load was calculated for steel NCF and CF system with and without steel deck. Dead
load was also calculated for RC slab-beam and flat plate floor system. The calculated loads
have been assigned in STAAD.Pro models.

Dead Load of Steel NCF System (with Steel Deck):

Rib width of steel decking = 150 mm.

Rib height of steel decking=50 mm.
Total slab thickness=100 mm.
Average slab thickness=75 mm.
2
Self weight of average 75 mm thick slab =1.82 kN/m .
2
Floor finish =1 kN/m .
2
Roof top 75 mm lime concrete weight=1.43 kN/m .
2
Lift machine room floor slab (125 mm slab with steel decking) weight=2.40 kN/m .
2
Toilet block average wall load=3.73 kN/m (calculated).
2
Lobby, stair and toilet block 100 mm slab without decking=2.40 kN/m .
125 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load= 8 kN/m.
250 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load=16 kN/m.
125 mm thick (3.35 meter height) roof top fixed parapet wall load=2.55 kN/m.
Lift load per column of lift cores=44.50 kN per column (assumed).
Water tank load per column of stair block columns=320 kN per column (calculated).
Dead load also includes self weight of steel beams, columns, girders, bracings, RC grade
beams, RC columns etc. which is directly assigned in the structural analysis model. Tentative
sections based on preliminary design are used for beams, columns, grade beams etc. and
finally revised.

Dead Load of Steel NCF System (without Steel Deck):

Average slab thickness=100 mm.

Same load as considered with deck above except the floor slab self weight will increase 0.60
2
kN/m .

Dead Load of Steel CF System (with Steel Deck):

Same load as considered for steel NCF system with deck above except the self
weight of steel frame will decrease slightly which is neglected.

Dead Load of Steel CF System (without Steel Deck):

Same load as considered for steel NCF system without deck above except the self
weight of steel frame will decrease slightly which is neglected.

Dead Load of RC Beam-Slab System:

2
Self weight of 175 mm thick slab =4.19 kN/m .
2
Floor finish = 1 kN/m .
2
Roof top 75 mm lime concrete weight=1.43 kN/m .
2
Lift machine room 150 mm thick floor slab weight=3.60 kN/m .
2
Toilet block average wall load=3.73 kN/m (calculated).
125 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load= 8 kN/m.
250 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load=16 kN/m.
125 mm thick (1 meter height) roof top fixed parapet wall load=2.55 kN/m.
Lift load per column of lift cores=44.50 kN per column (assumed).
Water tank load per column of stair block columns=320 kN per column (calculated).
Dead load also includes self weight of beams, columns, shear walls, grade beams etc. which
is directly assigned in the structural analysis model. Tentative sections based on preliminary
design are used for beams, columns, grade beams etc. and finally revised.

Dead Load of RC Flat Plate System:

2
Self weight of 225 mm thick slab =5.38 kN/m .
2
Floor finish =1 kN/m .
2
Roof top 75 mm lime concrete weight=1.43 kN/m .
2
Lift machine room 150 mm thick floor slab weight=3.60 kN/m .
2
Toilet block average wall load=3.73 kN/m (calculated).
125 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load= 8 kN/m.
250 mm thick (3.35 meter height) fixed wall load=16 kN/m.
125 mm thick (1 meter height) roof top fixed parapet wall load=2.55 kN/m.
Lift load per column of lift cores=44.50 kN per column (assumed).
Water tank load per column of stair block columns=320 kN per column (calculated).
Dead load also includes self weight of edge beams, columns, shear walls, grade beams etc.
which is directly assigned in the structural analysis model. Tentative sections based on
preliminary design are used for edge beams, columns, grade beams etc. and finally revised.

B.1.2 Design Lateral loads

Design lateral loads are wind load and earthquake load. These loads are calculated as per
BNBC 1993.

B.1.2.1 Calculation of Wind Load

Wind load is calculated following BNBC 1993. The assumed location of the project is
Gazipur. Basic wind speed is 215 kilometer per hour. Exposure category is assumed
A.

2
Now sustained wind pressure, qz=CcC1CzVb
Where,
qz =sustained wind pressure at height z, kN/m2.
C1= structure importance coefficient (1 for special occupancy structures).
-6
Cc=velocity to pressure conversion coefficient=47.210 .
Cz=combined height and exposure coefficient.
Vb= basic wind speed in km/hour.

Design wind pressure, Pz=CGCpqz

Where,
2
Pz=design wind pressure at height z, kN/m
CG=gust coefficient
Cp=pressure coefficient for structure or components
qz=sustained wind pressure

Pressure coefficient Cp:

Length of building =92 meter.

Width of building =56.45 meter.
Height of building = 20 meter.
For wind perpendicular to length, h/B= 20/92=0.21 and L/B=56.45/92=0.61
For wind perpendicular to width h/B= 20/56.45=0.354 and L/B=92/56.45=1.63
Now from table 6.2.15 of BNBC 1993 we get by interpolation,
Cp=1.52 when wind perpendicular to building length.
Cp= 1.24 when wind perpendicular to building width.

Design wind pressure:

Now design wind pressures are calculated at different height for wind perpendicular to
building length and wind perpendicular to building width as shown in Table B.3 and Table
B.4.

Table B.3 Design wind pressure (wind perpendicular to building length)

Height above Cz Sustained wind CG Design wind
ground level, z pressure, pressure,
2
(meter) qz=CcC1CzVb Pz=CGCpqz
2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
0-4.5 0.368 0.802 1.654 2.022
6 0.415 0.905 1.592 2.194
 9 0.497 1.084 1.511 2.495
12 0.565 1.232 1.457 2.735
15 0.624 1.361 1.418 2.939
18 0.677 1.477 1.388 3.122
21 0.725 1.581 1.363 3.284
24 0.769 1.677 1.342 3.429
27 0.810 1.767 1.324 3.563

Table B.4 Design wind pressure (wind perpendicular to building width)

Height above Cz Sustained wind CG Design wind
ground level, z pressure, pressure,
2
(meter) qz=CcC1CzVb Pz=CGCpqz
2 2
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
0-4.5 0.368 0.802 1.654 1.645
6 0.415 0.905 1.592 1.785
9 0.497 1.084 1.511 2.030
12 0.565 1.232 1.457 2.226
15 0.624 1.361 1.418 2.392
18 0.677 1.477 1.388 2.541
21 0.725 1.581 1.363 2.673
24 0.769 1.677 1.342 2.791
27 0.810 1.767 1.324 2.900

B.1.2.2 Seismic Load Calculation

Seismic load is calculated following BNBC 1993 for the design of selected four types of
structure. Following are the calculations.

Seismic zone=II

Design base shear,

Where,
Z =Seismic zone coefficient
 =0.15 for zone II
I =Structural importance coefficient
=1 for special occupancy structure
R =Response modification coefficient for structural system
=10 for steel eccentric braced frame
=8 for intermediate moment resisting concrete frame
W = Total seismic dead load

C = Numerical coefficient given by the relation

The value of C need not exceed 2.75.
S =Site coefficient for soil characteristics
=1.2 (considered)
T =Fundamental period of vibration in seconds, of the structure for the direction under
consideration.
=
Where,
Ct =0.083 for steel moment resisting frame
=0.073 for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames
hn=Height in meter above the base to level n
= 20 meter
Now after calculation we get,
T =0.7885 second for steel structure
=0.6935 second for RC structure
C = 1.753 for steel structure
=1.914 for RC structure
Value of C is greater than 2.75 and C/R ratio greater than 0.075.
So after calculation we get,
design base shear for steel structure,
V=0.0263W.(B.1)
and design base shear for concrete structure,
V=0.03588W...............................................................(B.2)
A. Seismic Load for Steel NCF System with Steel Deck

Seismic dead load, W is the total dead load of the building (including permanent partitions)
2
plus 25% of floor live load of wire house plus 1.2 kN/m for movable partition load and total
weight of permanent equipments.

Typical floor dead load:

4 nos. toilet block fixed partition wall load =1255 kN.

Warehouse block partition wall load =370 kN.
Office block partition wall load =427 kN.
Stair, lift core and exterior fixed wall load =4680 kN.
2
Slab and steel frame weight (3.40 kN/m ) =16106 kN.
25% storage live load =422 kN.
2
Weight of permanent equipments (0.48 kN/m ) =1668 kN.
2
Movable partition (1.2 kN/m ) =4172 kN.
So, total typical floor dead load =29100 kN.

Roof slab level dead load:

Parapet wall dead load= 605 kN.

Slab level dead load =19509 kN.
Total dead load =20114 kN.

Dead load at over head water tank level:

Over head water tank and water load=4857 kN.

Lift load =712 kN.
Roof top stair room load =2348 kN.
Lift machine room load =823 kN.
Total load =8740 kN.
Summary of seismic dead load:

Now a summary of calculated seismic dead load is prepared and given in Table B.5 which is
helpful in calculating base shear.

Table B.5 Seismic dead load of steel NCF system with steel deck
Height from ground level Slab level Seismic dead load
st
h1=3.35 meter 1 slab level W1=29100 kN
nd
h2=6.70 meter 2 slab level W2=29100 kN
rd
h3=10.05 meter 3 slab level W3=29100 kN
th
h4=13.40 meter 4 slab level W4=29100 kN
th
h5=16.75 meter 5 slab level W5=29100 kN
th
h6=20.10 meter 6 slab level W6=20114 kN
h7=23.45 meter water tank level W7=8740 kN
So, total seismic dead load, W=174354 kN

Total base shear:

Now putting value of W in equation B.1 we get, total base shear,

V= 0.0263W=0.0263 174354= 4585 kN.

Vertical distribution of total base shear:

The concentrated force Ft acting at the top of the building,

Ft=0.07TV < 0.25V when T > 0.7 second.
Ft=0 when T< 0.7 second.

Here T=0.7885 second >0.7 second.

So, Ft= 0.07 0.7885 4585=253 kN.

The remaining portion of the base shear (V-Ft=4332kN) shall be distributed over the height

of the building according to the relation,

After calculation we get,
Story force at first slab level, F1= 205 kN.
Story force at second slab level, F2= 409 kN.
Story force at third slab level, F3=614 kN.
Story force at forth slab level, F4= 818 kN.
Story force at fifth slab level, F5=1023 kN.
Story force at sixth slab level, F6+Ft=845+253=1098 kN.
Story force at water tank level, F7=450 kN.

Horizontal distribution of story shear:

Story forces to be distributed to the various elements of the vertical lateral force resisting
system in proportion to their rigidities considering the rigidity of the floor or roof diaphragm.
Here story shear is equally distributed to all beam-column connections at that story level for
simplicity (total 50 nos. connections at typical floor level and 36 nos. connections at water
tank level) and given in Table B.6 after calculation.

Table B.6 Seismic nodal load for steel NCF with steel deck
Location of horizontal point load Load per column node (kN)
st
At 1 slab level 1.75
nd
At 2 slab level 3.50
rd
At 3 slab level 5.25
th
At 4 slab level 7.00
th
At 5 slab level 8.76
th
At 6 slab level 9.43
At water tank level 12.45

B. Seismic Load for Steel NCF system without Steel Deck

Same dead load as considered with deck above except the floor slab self weight will
2
increase 0.6 kN/m . So seismic dead load will increase.
Summary of seismic dead load:

A summary of seismic dead load is prepared and given in Table B.7 which is helpful in
calculating base shear.

Table B.7 Seismic dead load of steel NCF without steel deck
Height from ground level Floor level Seismic dead load
st
h1=3.35 meter 1 slab level W1=31937 kN
nd
h2=6.70 meter 2 slab level W2=31937 kN
rd
h3=10.05 meter 3 slab level W3=31937 kN
th
h4=13.40 meter 4 slab level W4=31937 kN
th
h5=16.75 meter 5 slab level W5=31937 kN
th
h6=20.10 meter 6 slab level W6=22952 kN
h7=23.45 meter water tank level W7=8740 kN
So, total seismic dead load, W=191377 kN

Total base shear:

Now putting value of W in equation B.1 we get, total base shear,

V= 0.0263W=0.0263 191377 = 5033 kN.

Vertical distribution of total base shear:

Here T=0.7885 second >0.7 second.

So, Ft=0.07TV= 0.07 0.7885 5033=278 kN.

After calculation we get,

Story force at first slab level, F1= 222 kN.
Story force at second slab level, F2= 445 kN.
Story force at third slab level, F3=672 kN.
Story force at forth slab level, F4=894 kN.
Story force at fifth slab level, F5=116 kN.
Story force at sixth slab level, F6+Ft=961+278=1239 kN.
Story force at water tank level, F7=449 kN.
Horizontal distribution of story shear:

Horizontal seismic nodal load is calculated and given in Table B.8 which is assigned to
STAAD.Pro model for analysis.

Table B.8 Seismic nodal load for steel NCF without steel deck
Location of horizontal point load Load per column node (kN)
st
At 1 slab level 1.87
nd
At 2 slab level 3.82
rd
At 3 slab level 5.70
th
At 4 slab level 7.60
th
At 5 slab level 9.51
th
At 6 slab level 10.58
At water tank level 12.45

C. Seismic Load for Steel CF System with Steel Deck

Same dead load as considered for steel NCF with deck above except the self weight of steel
frame decreases slightly which is neglected. So seismic load is considered same with
negligible error.

D. Seismic Load for Steel CF System without Steel Deck

Same dead load as considered for steel NCF without decking above except the self weight of
steel frame decreases slightly which is neglected. So seismic load is considered same with
negligible error.

E. Seismic Load for RC Beam-Slab System

2
Compared to steel NCF system with decking, self weight of slab increases 2.40 kN/m . Due
2
to self weight of RC beam and column, average dead load also increases 1.43 kN/m . So
seismic dead load increases.
Summary of seismic dead load:

A summary of seismic dead load is prepared and given in Table B.9 which is helpful is
calculating base shear for RC beam-slab structure.

Table B.9 Seismic dead load of RC beam-slab structure

Height from ground level Floor level Seismic dead load
st
h1=3.35 meter 1 slab level W1=47247 kN
nd
h2=6.70 meter 2 slab level W2=47247 kN
rd
h3=10.05 meter 3 slab level W3=47247 kN
th
h4=13.40 meter 4 slab level W4=47247 kN
th
h5=16.75 meter 5 slab level W5=47247 kN
th
h6=20.10 meter 6 slab level W6=38262 kN
h7=23.45 meter water tank level W7=8950 kN
So, total seismic dead load, W=283447 kN

Total base shear:

Now putting value of W in equation B.2 we get, total base shear,

V=0.03588W =0.03588 283447=10170 kN.

Vertical distribution of total base shear:

Here T=0.6935 second <0.7 second.

So, Ft=0
After calculation we get,
Story force at first slab level, F1= 480 kN.
Story force at second slab level, F2=956 kN.
Story force at third slab level, F3=1436 kN.
Story force at forth slab level, F4=1921 kN.
Story force at fifth slab level, F5=2393 kN.
Story force at sixth slab level, F6=2326 kN.
Story force at water tank level, F7=667 kN.

Horizontal distribution of story shear:

Horizontal seismic nodal load is calculated and given in Table B.10 which are assigned to
STAAD.Pro model for analysis.

Table B.10 Seismic nodal load for RC slab-beam system

Location of horizontal point load Load per column node (kN)
st
At 1 slab level 4.00
nd
At 2 slab level 8.18
rd
At 3 slab level 12.63
th
At 4 slab level 16.36
th
At 5 slab level 20.46
th
At 6 slab level 19.88
At water tank level 18.50

F. Seismic Load for RC Flat Plate System

2
Compared to RC beam-slab system, 0.33 kN/m average floor dead load increases. So
seismic dead load increases a small amount.

Summary of seismic dead load:

A summary of seismic dead load is prepared and given in Table B.11 which is helpful in
calculating base shear for RC flat plate structure.

Table B.11 Seismic dead load of RC flat plate structure

Height from ground level Floor level Seismic dead load
st
h1=3.35 meter 1 slab level W1=48835 kN
nd
h2=6.70 meter 2 slab level W2=48835 kN
rd
h3=10.05 meter 3 slab level W3=48835 kN
th
h4=13.40 meter 4 slab level W4=48835 kN
th
h5=16.75 meter 5 slab level W5=48835 kN
 th
h6=20.10 meter 6 slab level W6=39850 kN
h7=23.45 meter water tank level W7=8950 kN
So, total seismic dead load, W=292975 kN

Total base shear:

Now putting value of W in equation B.2 we get, total base shear,

V=0.03588W =0.03588 292975=10512 kN.

Vertical distribution of total base shear:

Here T=0.6935second <0.7 second.

So, Ft=0
After calculation we get,
Story force at first slab level, F1= 494 kN
Story force at second slab level, F2= 992 kN
Story force at third slab level, F3=1486 kN
Story force at forth slab level, F4=1980 kN
Story force at fifth slab level, F5=2473 kN
Story force at sixth slab level, F6=2424 kN
Story force at water tank level, F7=667 kN

Horizontal distribution of story shear:

Horizontal seismic nodal load is calculated and given in Table B.12 which is assigned to
STAAD.Pro model for analysis.
 Table B.12 Seismic nodal load for RC flat plate system
Location of horizontal point load Load per column node (kN)
st
At 1 slab level 4.22
nd
At 2 slab level 8.45
rd
At 3 slab level 12.67
th
At 4 slab level 16.90
th
At 5 slab level 21.12
th
At 6 slab level 20.68
At water tank level 18.50
 Appendix-C

C.1 Schedule of Item Rates

Schedule of item rates is prepared by analyzing rates with the help of standard procedure and
present practice, using the present market rate of materials and labors.

C.1.1 Schedule of Rates for Structural Steel Works

Schedule of item rates for structural steel works is prepared by rate analysis, following PWD
item rate analysis procedure and present practice of different structural steel fabrication
companies. In this case, the present market rates of materials and labors are used.

Table C.1 Schedule of rates for structural steel

Item Description of item Unit Unit rate
no. (BDT)
1 Built-up I-sections fabricated at shop from ASTM A572 kg 125
grade 50 steel plates by SMAW or SAW welding as per
AWS D.1.1 Structural Welding Code, brushing, grinding,
surface painting with gray oxide, erecting at site, two coats
enamel paint, transportation etc. all complete in all respect
with necessary joint plates, stiffeners etc.
2 Fitting of ASTM A325 or A490 high strength bolts with nuts kg 148
and washers at joints tightening with proper calibrated
wrench during erecting.
3 Fitting and fixing galvanized ASTM F1554 grade 55 anchor kg 138
rods with necessary site welding and accessories etc. all
complete in all respect.
4 Fitting and fixing ASTM A653M SS grade 550, Z 180 kg 122
galvanized cold formed steel deck of 0.7 mm thickness and
anchored to supporting members not more than 450 mm etc.
all complete.
 5 Fitting and fixing ASTM A108 stud shear connectors of kg 130
dia. 16 mm and 20 mm by welding as per AWS D.1.1
Structural Welding Code with steel beam flange.
6 Decking screw to fasten steel deck. kg 706
7 Supplying and spraying fire proof spray (25 mm thickness) sqm 1730
at surface of structural steel.

C.1.2 Schedule of Rates for Civil Works

Schedule of item rates for civil works is prepared by rate analysis, following PWD item rate
analysis procedure. In this case, the present market rates of materials and labors are used.

Table C.2 Schedule of rates for RC structural works

Item Description of item Unit Unit rate
no. (BDT)
1 Reinforced cement concrete (1:2:3.5) works using wooden cum 9600
shutter, having minimum compressive strength fc = 22
Mpa with standard quality cement, best quality Sylhet sand or
coarse sand of equivalent F.M. 2.2 and 20 mm down well
graded stone chips.
2 Reinforced cement concrete (1:1.5:3) works using wooden cum 9778
shutter, having minimum compressive strength fc = 25 Mpa
with standard quality cement, best quality Sylhet sand or coarse
sand of equivalent F.M. 2.2 and 20 mm down well graded
stone chips.
3 Wooden shutter (made of mango wood) making, leveling and sqm 425
fitting.
4 Reinforcement works using deformed bar with minimum fy = kg 78
400 MPa and tensile strength at least 460 MPa including cost of
fabrication, wires etc. all complete.
 Table C.3 Schedule of rates for other civil works
Item Description of item Unit Unit rate
no. (BDT)
1 Earthwork in excavation in foundation trenches up to 1.5 m cum 441
depth and maximum 10 m lead: in medium stiff clayey soil.
2 Extra rate for excavation of each additional 0.5 meter depth cum 10
exceeding 1.5 meter.
3 Sand filling in foundation trenches and plinth with sand having cum 654
F.M. 0.5 to 0.8 in 150mm layers including leveling, watering
and compaction to achieve minimum dry density of 90% with
optimum moisture content (Modified proctor test) by ramming
each layer up to finished level as per design supplied by the
design office only etc. all complete and accepted by the
Engineer.
4 Earth filling in foundation trenches and plinth in 150 mm layer cum 96
with earth available within 90 m of the building site to achieve
minimum dry density of 90% with optimum moisture content
(Modified proctor test) including carrying watering, leveling,
dressing and compacting to a specified percentage each layer
up to finished level etc. all complete and accepted by the
Engineer.
5 One layer of brick flat soling in foundation or in floor with sqm 360
first class or picked jhama bricks including preparation of bed
and filling the interstices with local sand, leveling etc. complete
and accepted by the Engineer.
6 Supplying and laying of single layer polythene sheet weighing sqm 27
one kilogram per 6.5 square meter in floor or any where below
cement concrete complete in all respect and accepted by the
Engineer.
7 50 mm concrete (1:3:6) work under foundation with cement, cum 7096
stone chips and sand (50% Sylhet sand and 50% local coarse
sand).
8 150 mm or 6" thick damp proof course (1:1.5:3) with Sylhet cum 9778
sand (F.M. 2.2) stone chips and water-proofing admixture/agent
 approved by the Engineer.
9 125 mm brick work with first class bricks in cement sand sqm 786
(F.M. 1.2) mortar (1:5) and making bond with connected walls
including necessary scaffolding, raking out joints, cleaning and
soaking the bricks for at least 24 hours before use and washing
of sand curing at least for 7 days in all floors including cost of
water, electricity and other charges etc. all complete and
accepted by the Engineer.

10 Brick works with first class bricks in cement sand (F.M. of cum 6000
sand 1.2) mortar (1:5) in foundation and plinth, filling the
joints/interstices fully with mortar, racking out the joints,
cleaning and soaking the bricks at least for 24 hours before use
and curing at least for 7 days etc. all complete including cost of
water, electricity and other charges and accepted by the
Engineer.

11 Brick works with first class bricks in cement sand (F.M. of Cum 6185
sand 1.2) mortar (1:5) in lift core wall, filling the
joints/interstices fully with mortar, racking out the joints,
cleaning and soaking the bricks at least for 24 hours before use
and curing at least for 7 days etc. all complete including cost of
water, electricity and other charges and accepted by the
Engineer.

th
12 Add for each additional floor up to 5 floor for brick work. cum 79
13 Supplying, fitting and fixing glazed homogeneous floor tiles sqm 1453
(local made) with cement sand (F.M. 1.2) mortar (1:4) base and
raking out the joints with white cement including cutting and
laying the tiles in proper way and finishing with care etc. all
complete and accepted by the Engineer.

14 Supplying, fitting and fixing glazed wall tiles 300mm 300 sqm 1226
mm size (local made) with 20 mm thick cement sand (F.M.
1.2) mortar (1:3) base and raking out the joints with white
 cement including cutting, laying and charge of machine and
finishing with care etc. including water, electricity and other
charges complete all respect accepted by the Engineer.
15 Supplying, fitting and fixing homogeneous bathroom floor sqm 1366
tiles 300mm 300 mm size (local made) with cement sand
(F.M. 1.2) mortar (1:4) base and raking out the joints with
white cement including cutting and laying the tiles in proper
way and finishing with care etc. all complete and accepted by
the Engineer.
16 Net cement finishing works. sqm 280
17 Plaster works (1:5) with best quality local sand and standard sqm 205
cement.
18 Plastic painting works two coats. sqm 183
19 Enamel painting works with two coats. sqm 172
20 Window grill works. sqm 1652
21 Window work with 75 mm aluminum sections and 5 mm glass. sqm 3228
22 Plastic door size 750mm2100 mm. nos. 5000
23 Wooden door work size 900mm2100 mm. nos. 25000
24 Wooden door work size 1800 mm2100 mm. nos. 45000

Table C.4 Schedule of rates for sanitary works

Item Description of Unit Unit Item Description of Unit Unit
no. item rate no. item rate
(BDT) (BDT)
1 Basin nos 2500 6 Towel rail nos 450
2 Long pan nos 950 7 Rose shower nos 850
3 Low down nos 2500 8 Bib cock nos 950
4 Mirror nos 550 9 Angle stop cock nos 550
5 Soap case nos 200 10 Pillar cock nos 200
 Appendix-D

Figure D.1 Steel column layout plan

Figure D.2(a) Typical floor steel girder layout plan
Figure D.2(b) Steel girder layout plan over roof level
Figure D.3(a) Typical floor steel secondary beam layout plan
Figure D.3(b) Steel secondary beam layout plan over roof level
Figure D.4 Steel bracing system
Figure D.5 Steel base plate layout plan